Christopher DeGraffenreid's page

I'm getting more and more interested in Pathfinder daily (oddly enough this increasing interest is mirrored by an ever increading disinterest in 4e and WoTC's offerings overall).

I personally find the "Christmas Tree Effect" to be one of the most pernicious problems of 3.5e. The over reliance on magical items sorely limits the type of game a DM/GM can run. Its hard to run a gritty/lower magic campaign when denying PCs magic items will just about guarantee their failure.

I'm hoping that Pathfinder will have a workaround that allows fans of both high and low magic games to play the system without having to look elsewhere. The broader the number of playstyles supported, the better.

Allow me to vent this and then share your opinion if you wish.

I detest, I hate with the fiery fury of 1000 suns, 1/day non-magical powers because there is NO rationale whatsoever than can explain how a warrior, ranger or rogue wouldn't be able to use a certain ability more than one per day. I can see perhaps allowing for telling a player that a certain opening needed by his fighter would likely only happen once per encounter...and that is a bit of a stretch IMO depending upon the length of the encounter. But once per day is insane. So non-magical abilities have a recharge time. At least with magic I am able to create a reason why that makes sense within the mytaphysics of the setting or game system.

But once per day no matter how many encounters take place? My players (D&D players for 20+yrs each) thought that the very idea was ridiculous and destructive to the suspension of disbelief. None of us are hard core simulationists, but for god's sake we like to immerse ourselves in the setting and the events of the campaign so a bit of versimilitude is helpful (the more the better).

As a DM, this is way, way too gamist for me. I'm sorry, but the idea of daily non-magical exploits or whatnot is bordering on CRPG territory or boardgame territory where there isn't even an attempt at maintaining the illusion of the "reality" of events in the game.

Hello,

I'm relatively new here though I have been lurking for awhile.

I want to pose a question:

Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

Let me say upfront that I know WoTC owns the IP called D&D and can create a game similar to chutes and ladders and call it D&D as such is their legal right.

My point isn't the legalese of what D&D is or even a discussion of whether or not 4e is really D&D or not in the sense of its feel and play. There are threads for that.

What I am curious about is the phenomena of brand loyalty in the way that there actually are people compelled through emotional reasons to support their favorite brand despite the failings of the brand. For example, there actually are people who will not drive a brand new top of the line Ford truck but will drive a lesser quality Chevy truck because it is a Chevy. For most, emotion plays a far greater factor in one's choices than objective realities.

So this thread is about brand loyalty and not about edition warfare.

4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e. The differences have been written about ad nauseum so will not be reiterated here. Due to the many differences between 4e and any edition that has come before, many have IMO justifiably asked "Is 4e D&D?" If D&D, as some have indicated, rather simplistically I might add, "If the game has dungeons and dragons in it and the whole point of the game is killing things and taking their stuff, then its D&D," then I would argue that MERP, True20, Conan, Runequest, Pathfinder, etc. are all D&D as well.

My thesis is that (and I am not attempting to insult anyone here) if any other company such as Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, etc. created a game with the full panapoly of 4e's new mechanics very, very few people would be dumping 3.5 D&D to play this new system. Oh some may indeed swipe some mechanics for their 3.5 D&D game but for the most part 3.5e would still be king of the hill, not just in sales, but in perception of quality.

I truly believe that the vast majority of D&D players would shrug their shoulders and think, "Cool new game system witrh some nice mechanics but I'll stick with D&D." A relatively small number of gamers would jump onto the new system with both feet having grown tired of 3.5e but we wouldn't be seeing mass sell offs of 3.5e materials on ebay just to play this new game.

Forgetting for a moment IP laws and whatnot. Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist? 4e fans, would you have dumped 3.5e wholesale after a couple sessions of this new game if it were created by Green Ronin and called something other than D&D?

Would the dumping of magical schools, gnomes, high elves (now eladrin), half orcs be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Paizo did it first?

Would the greater emphasis on miniatures, the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn as core races, the adoption of MMORPG terms such as striker and controller, the removal of the vast majority of arcane and divine spells, be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Green Ronin did it first?

Would healing surges, at will, per encounter and per day powers, and residuum be more D&D than D&D if Mongoose Publishing did it first?

Chris