Tabletop Roleplaying Games (D&D, Pathfinder, CoC, ETC.)

Imagine trusting the word of the man who actively torpedoed the edition. He wasn't even on the design team for the first release and he actively shit talked the game publicly until he was given lead design after the actual original designers left or were booted by Hasbro.

Even if you hate 4th Edition after all these years Mike Mearls is wormy little faggot and should not be trusted on anything he says. Especially now that he has an axe to grind after he was given the boot about a year or so ago.
Yes, you are correct. I am going to take the word of the guy who started with WotC in 2005 and worked on the last three editions.

I mean, c’mon. Fourth edition put tieflings in the core book and redesigned them to look like Draenei with toes.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: Acrid Alchemist
I don't think it even matters. A bunch of boomer executives tried to hitch their cart to a wildly successful money printing machine of the mid-2000s? Well, duh. I can absolutely believe that it was their motive, especially since they were trying to get a VTT running for it and 4e's fairly rigid powers fit well with automation.

However, my contention was and is that, regardless of motivation, 4e is not remotely like WoW in execution. It's a turn-based top-down grid map tactics game. Not a single one of those things matches WoW. The powers only resemble WoW's in the most unfocused general sense; "hit an enemy and it does damage and x debuff or y other thing" is hardly a ground-breaking concept here. If you're sitting down to play 4e, your actual gameplay is much more in the vein of something like X-Com.
 
Mearls himself said he wasn't there during the initial design meetings

So? I know a lot about why every product I've ever worked on is designed the way it is, despite not ever being on an initial creative team, because people who work together talk about what they're working on.

The weird thing is how upset people like you get when you draw the obvious WoW comparisons. WoW had some very good design ideas. That's why it's still being played after like 20 years. Why get angry about this? Why do you take it as an insult to point out how very much like MMOs the whole Leader/Defender/Striker/Controller thing is?

How it was meant to be a quick little rule to reduce complexity and step stupid action chains, but in practice it became the focus of the action economy.

I had a guy at my table who would look through the books every turn to try and find a bonus action to use.
 
The weird thing is how upset people like you get when you draw the obvious WoW comparisons. WoW had some very good design ideas. That's why it's still being played after like 20 years. Why get angry about this? Why do you take it as an insult to point out how very much like MMOs the whole Leader/Defender/Striker/Controller thing is?
Because since its release "MMO Edition" or "WoW tabletop" has been used to deride 4e by people who never played it and just want to spread shit. robobo is right in that if you were to actually compare it to any video game it would be either tactics games like XCOM or turn based CRPGs like Fallout or later games like Divinity Original Sin but CRPGs are essentially single player digital tabletop games and so its less of a shit talk. Hell the closest MMOs to 4e are Dofus/Wakfu but they are fairly obscure and French so they obviously didn't inspire the game.

Also the "roles" Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller or Tank/Healer/DPS or whatever predate MMOs. They literally come from the stereotypical old edition D&D party of Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.
 
I had a guy at my table who would look through the books every turn to try and find a bonus action to use.
Was this okay, though, or was it annoying? I usually had a player like this, but was it always bad? I'd always try to make the results of this good. Using the game's rules to get good results is usually good.

If it was annoying I'd sometimes make the results horrible for my own amusement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brain Problems
Because since its release "MMO Edition" or "WoW tabletop" has been used to deride 4e by people who never played it and just want to spread shit. robobo is right in that if you were to actually compare it to any video game it would be either tactics games like XCOM or turn based CRPGs like Fallout or later games like Divinity Original Sin but CRPGs are essentially single player digital tabletop games and so its less of a shit talk. Hell the closest MMOs to 4e are Dofus/Wakfu but they are fairly obscure and French so they obviously didn't inspire the game.

Also the "roles" Defender/Leader/Striker/Controller or Tank/Healer/DPS or whatever predate MMOs. They literally come from the stereotypical old edition D&D party of Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue.
I think the confusion is a mix of timing and the fact that 4e and WoW/Everquest share a common inspiration in CRPGs. I also think there was a effort to encapsulate and market aspects of 4e for an MMO player base even if those items weren't created to appeal to MMO players.

Original DMG is only good DMG. The one that looked like this.
View attachment 6994823
Every one since?

Utter garbage.
Caveat. OG DMG is the only one that actually talks about being a dungeonmaster for a traditional RPG in a fairly abstract, portable sense.

Other DMGs are good for THE GAMES/EDITIONS they were released for.

View attachment 6995109

Just somehow doubt that someone who's got a reputation as an all-around decent guy is making up a pack of lies solely to upset 4e fans who were in denial about the game's obvious MMO inspirations.
Eh, Mearls might be a good person but as far as a someone to work for/with, I've heard less than good things.
 
What is the worst moral choice you ever faced your players with? I had a CoC thing where I gave the players a choice of collaborating with literal Nazis against eldritch horrors. Not random Nazis, literal NSDAP Nazis.
To get out of the dungeon alive, they had to figure out who would kill the others since one volunteered already to be "caretaker" of the place, essentially becoming an instrument of the malice dwelling in the haunted chateau. The other two fought to the death to determine who could leave.

It was a one-shot, but a pretty fun little one-shot.

As for 4e; it's why I usually compare it more to minis gaming and Chainmail than I do MMOs, since that's more of what it's like, which killed a lot of my interest after the first 3.5 campaign I played in hooked me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AnOminous
What is the worst moral choice you ever faced your players with? I had a CoC thing where I gave the players a choice of collaborating with literal Nazis against eldritch horrors. Not random Nazis, literal NSDAP Nazis.
My players are prone to doing morally questionable things anyway. But I might have to make more of an effort to add in some moral conundrums for my group that's more morally good. That group will usually only do bad things on accident.

Closest thing I can think of is in my homebrew sci-fi/sci-fan setting. It takes place in a multi-galactic empire that's about as close to an effective police state as you can get. There's also a defunct pseudo-Nazi government that has managed to stick around as insurgents, but they more or less aren't really a threat unless you live in the middle of nowhere. The two parties fought against this group, while directly working for the big empire. I would often illustrate that the government they were working for would do things that were as bad if not worse than the other former state ever was. An example would be: during the initial war with humanity, this big empire butchered the population of an entire world which had basically no defenses in a attempt to force a surrender. I don't think they really thought too hard about it though. It doesn't help that one of my players is German. So as far as she's concerned anything not directly connected to Nazis is better than Nazis.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: AnOminous
What is the worst moral choice you ever faced your players with? I had a CoC thing where I gave the players a choice of collaborating with literal Nazis against eldritch horrors. Not random Nazis, literal NSDAP Nazis.
Sorry, you were trying to talk about a worst moral choice here?
Take a look at Germany, France, and England these days, and ask yourself if speaking German would really be that bad.

The worst one I ever got hit with was to damn the rest of the world to centuries of barbarism, decline, orcish and demonic predation, and mercantile slaver-states with industrialized necromancy, or to damn the Eternal Empire just to buy a few more decades of status quo.

Sorry, City-On-The-Stones, hang on as best you can, we'll be back for you. Aeternum et Eternal.
 
The campaign I'm in is set in a world where technology is on par with WW1 tech. We're all pretty much prisoners of the crown. A suicide squad. I'm a grave cleric and I'm pretty sure my god is dying/dead because my healing powers didn't work. Tar just shot out of my hand. Would tell more about the game but I don't wanna sperg out. Still pretty new to DND but man I'm having fun even if I literally almost got one shot when I finally met the bbeg
 
What is the worst moral choice you ever faced your players with? I had a CoC thing where I gave the players a choice of collaborating with literal Nazis against eldritch horrors. Not random Nazis, literal NSDAP Nazis.
Is that really a moral dilemma? Sure, it’s unpleasant, but between the two, I’d take the Nazis over Nyarlathotep. Even JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure understood the correct answer to this question.

God, Stroheim was based.
 
Having run a couple sessions of Starfinder I can absolutely see why people don't care about it. I love science fantasy/space opera settings, but the game is in a weird "it's just fantasy but in space" kind of setting that doesn't 100% work and the rules are too loose between Magic and Tech items IMO. Still only 2 sessions in it and following modules. I think I'll have my total feel after I finish Junker's Paradise.
I think part of the rules* being weird at least, is that Starfinder is to Pozzo what Saga Edition is to WOTC. The science fantasy bastard child stuck in between two editions, to test the waters for a few of the new edition's changes. Less consideration for the sci-fi elements that wouldn't be ported over, or would see limited use.
 
Was this okay, though, or was it annoying? I usually had a player like this, but was it always bad? I'd always try to make the results of this good. Using the game's rules to get good results is usually good.

If it was annoying I'd sometimes make the results horrible for my own amusement.
It's always bad because it slows the game down, and the rules haven't changed since the last ten times he looked. I had to say over and over, "Your only bonus action spells are Healing Word and Spiritual Weapon. No, Sacred Flame is not a bonus action. No, you cannot shove as a bonus action. No, only the Rogue can disengage as a bonus action."

Every.

Single.

Turn.

Because he could not remember that information for five fucking minutes. There are no "general" bonus actions but he'd always start hunting through the books hoping to find one after he'd realized all his bonus action spells consumed a slot. "Hold on, maybe there's something in Tasha's." No, there isn't, and there wasn't last time.
 
My players are prone to doing morally questionable things anyway.
This particular team was pretty seriously morally compromised. The original core was Russian gangsters who had had to flee Russia because they'd sided with the White Russians, but were sincerely patriotic to their new homeland in the United States.

If it had been Communists, they would have had a harder choice.

That said, they weren't fans of Nazis, either, so it was actually an "is there any other way to do this thing" thing (this was in the period when we were actually at war with them not the stage when it was mostly commies who were mad about them so it was technically treason too).
Sorry, you were trying to talk about a worst moral choice here?
I couldn't have picked Communists because they'd never have gone along with that, world be damned.
 
Last edited:
It's always bad because it slows the game down, and the rules haven't changed since the last ten times he looked. I had to say over and over, "Your only bonus action spells are Healing Word and Spiritual Weapon. No, Sacred Flame is not a bonus action. No, you cannot shove as a bonus action. No, only the Rogue can disengage as a bonus action."

Every.

Single.

Turn.

Because he could not remember that information for five fucking minutes. There are no "general" bonus actions but he'd always start hunting through the books hoping to find one after he'd realized all his bonus action spells consumed a slot. "Hold on, maybe there's something in Tasha's." No, there isn't, and there wasn't last time.
That sounds incredibly irritating and I'd probably tell him to learn how to write shit down on a piece of paper after the second time it happened. I'm pretty forgiving to my players when it comes to the rules but wasting everyone's time is something that gets me on someone's case faster than anything. Unless your next turn is obvious than decide what you're doing when it's not your turn, it makes the game more interesting anyway because you're not just playing the game 1/4th of the time.
 
It's always bad because it slows the game down, and the rules haven't changed since the last ten times he looked. I had to say over and over, "Your only bonus action spells are Healing Word and Spiritual Weapon. No, Sacred Flame is not a bonus action. No, you cannot shove as a bonus action. No, only the Rogue can disengage as a bonus action."
Okay that definitely sucks and I'd punish that guy. I'd consider him consulting the book as gay and unrealistic and that his character, instead of getting a bonus, instead just stood there like a retard the entire round and lost his actual action.

That said, I'm generally pretty inclined to allow more thought before an action than would actually be available in combat. I generally encourage creativity. I think the rule should be is it fun? Is it making the story better? Then I let it slide.

Especially when I'm doing puzzle/trap type dungeons I don't want to rush players into mistakes. You should be thinking about things.
 
I think part of the rules* being weird at least, is that Starfinder is to Pozzo what Saga Edition is to WOTC. The science fantasy bastard child stuck in between two editions, to test the waters for a few of the new edition's changes. Less consideration for the sci-fi elements that wouldn't be ported over, or would see limited use.
That's a really good way to put it. Like the way some people talk about it, it's the worst system ever and not worth anything. However, using it, I do not hate it. It's just very much in a weird spot. Now if I was looking for Hard Sci-Fi I would hate it, but I wanted a Science Fantasy feel, just not as fantasy as it went.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2LtMashengo
That said, I'm generally pretty inclined to allow more thought before an action than would actually be available in combat.
Sure. But there is a world of difference between looking up the Grapple rules and just randomly hunting through books, hoping to find a way to spend your unspent bonus action.

Point is the bonus action just complicated the action economy and made any player who didn't have one feel they weren't maximizing their turn. PF2's 3 action points are much better. There are basic things you can always do to spend all 3.
 
It's always bad because it slows the game down, and the rules haven't changed since the last ten times he looked. I had to say over and over, "Your only bonus action spells are Healing Word and Spiritual Weapon. No, Sacred Flame is not a bonus action. No, you cannot shove as a bonus action. No, only the Rogue can disengage as a bonus action."

Every.

Single.

Turn.

Because he could not remember that information for five fucking minutes. There are no "general" bonus actions but he'd always start hunting through the books hoping to find one after he'd realized all his bonus action spells consumed a slot. "Hold on, maybe there's something in Tasha's." No, there isn't, and there wasn't last time.
That is really frustrating. It's understandable for someone new to the game to take more time to finish their turn, especially if they're a spell caster. But eventually everyone should have a default action ready for their turn if they really don't know what to do.

I would take him aside and tell him that he's slowing down the game and he needs to go through the bonus actions available to him and write them down on a note card or even in a note doc on his phone. It's also worth noting that not every class/subclass isn't going to have a bonus action available every turn. You can fix that by taking feats or multi-classing. But sometimes, you're just not going to get to use it. If that doesn't work, just put him on a timer, probably 1 minute. Not done in a minute? Too bad you're time is up. The enemies aren't going to stand around waiting for you to read through the rule book.
 
I would take him aside and tell him that he's slowing down the game and he needs to go through the bonus actions available to him and write them down on a note card or even in a note doc on his phone.

I encourage players to make a "cheat sheet" containing rules which they have trouble remembering but rely on a lot, like charging for a melee character or descriptions of all the spells that a caster has. Players who take me up on it have faster rounds and seem to enjoy themselves more. Combat encounters would take half as long if all the players did this, but no one likes doing homework and some people just enter a fugue state when it's not their turn no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Back