|
I don't think that defining D&D is helpful in this instance, because the definitions will vary. What matters isn't that these people say "this isn't D&D" or "it's anime" etc. These expressions are used to express a feeling rather inaccurately. They are sort of catch-phrases. What matters isn't the actual definition of those expressions but what they mean in the mouth (or at the fingertips) of the person using them.
I've been talking of "pokemon aspect of the fluff" in a 4E thread on another board. Then, instead of debating about what pokemons are, what "exact" elements of D&D would fit the definition of a "pokemon" (which again just makes the discussion go to hell and doesn't actually serve any purpose as far as the exchange of ideas and opinions is concerned), I got asked what I meant. That was a very fair question.
Here's what I answered:
I'm referring to the style of fantasy that practically hijacked the whole genre by now and took decades to do so with stuff like Legend of Zelda, Cosmocats, He-Man, up to stuff like Pokemon and so on. That's the fantasy that is always there, apparent and flashy, the "monsters" that are the heroes, the castle shaped like a cheesy skull and so on. It's Sprague de Camp instead of Robert E. Howard, if you will.
Sorry if I offend some sensibilities, but nobody should be offended by this. I love some of these shows too, you know? That's just what many fans of the game are trying to say when they use the dreadful/useless word of "anime". It's not about what anime is or isn't. It's not about whether Cosmocats had a cool plot or not (I know it did - I watched it religiously).
It's about what people are trying to explain when they use such a word.
Then later, I precised:
That's what usually is going wrong in threads where some people try to express this idea that the emphasis on self-evident, in-your-face, flashy, fantasy doesn't appeal to them. They use the name "anime", say. Then you'll have a guy asking "how can you say it's anime? Show me art that is anime in D&D". Then, the discussion goes to trash because this picture doesn't have big eyes, that one doesn't have a big mouth, while the term is analyzed and cut into pieces. Of course, the more you define anime in the debate, the less art pieces fit the description. That's because the term "anime" isn't used properly. It's a catch-phrase if you will, like saying something's "punk" when what you're talking about is the "rock'n roll's rebellion against the establishment".
By over-analyzing the thing, the meaning of what the guy meant originally is lost. Some people actually use that to their advantage in debates (and that's despicable when it's done knowingly to destabilize someone you don't agree with instead of trying to understand better what he's trying to say).
See what I mean?
Link to the thread in question on OYT.
That's what really matters: what people mean. Not the way they're trying to express it.
I love Gary Gygax like a brother, but Dangerous Journeys sucked.
For me, D&D is whichever version I spent the most money on (since you reinforce success). That would be 3.5 hands down. I'm not throwing out a system I have so much invested in just because some WotC corporate types say it's time.
If I wanted a simplified ruleset, I'd go back to Games Workshop.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, What D&D isn't.
It's not Star Wars, though it might be Raiders of the Lost Ark.
It's not Bubblegum Crisis, but it might be Princess Monokoe.
It's not Knight Rider, but it might be the A-Team.
It's not Survivor, but it might be The Amazing Race.
It is a group of friends playing around a table, each having their chance to shine, and each being able to laugh and enjoy bringing the dragon down with a lucky shot, or surviving a breath weapon and smile. It's donating your petrified companion to a local musuem until you can afford the stone to flesh scroll. It's 'What spells do I need today?" asks the cleric. It's starting a Cleave/great cleave chain slaughtering the orcs to get to the princess. It's the bard summoning a celestial badger behind the bad guy so the rogue's sneak attacks come online.
The Mummy is D&D, and sums it up perfectly "Save the girl, kill the creature."
|
My DM? Depends. If it's a group of orcs or something, then no. He'll only roll once if they're all mooks with the same stats. But if we're fighting a variety of things with different save bonuses? Then yes. He'll roll for each. And this is something that DOES happen. Frequently.
Isn't that what I said? Except I also said I roll all their dice at the same time. Different colored dice are a boon at times.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not really arguing against the percieved 4.0 mechanics. I'm just saying 1) I don't have a problem with the old mechanics and 2) there are tricks to speeding things up.
The thing is D&D is hard to describe. (As we have all found out.)
To me D&D is vancian magic.
Its sword and sorcery.
Its magic, but magic as a miracle as something spectacular... not something everyone can do.
Its flavour like the great wheel (which connected everyones homebrews), meteor swarm, wish, geas, cure light wounds, etc.
Its succeeding against the odds, not as a near guarantee.
It's about the nine alignments (which I will go on record to say are awesome roleplaying tools) and paladins being sticks in the mud that always do the right thing.
Its about teamwork.
Its about different shaped dice and random treasure.
Its about that quest for that custom thing you have been bugging the DM about.
Its about having your moment to shine and letting other people have theirs.
And before you say "Well it sounds like my D&D isn't D&D then" I have this to say. The exceptions are D&D. D&D is about choice. But when the base isn't there and the exceptions are the rule then...
You can have D&D flavoured games but that doesn't make it D&D. No more then "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!" is butter.
(Edit: Thanks for the heads up DangerDwarf. I'm blaming my spell checker :P)
and actually restored some elements that were lost in 2nd edition (such as the restoration of the monk class and the inclusion of half-orcs as a player race).A little off topic here but...
They weren't lost in 2nd Edition, just delayed. There is a 2nd Edition monk class (although admittedly it came out extremely late) as well as half-orcs as a playable race.
Sorry I wasn't more clear. They weren't options in the PHB, just like gnomes and druids won't be in the 4th edition PHB.
Both sets of omissions irk me.
|
My response will echo some of the ones I have seen here but I think they bear repeating.
While I sit somewhat in the "D&D is what you make of it" camp I can say there are certain aspects that must remain intact for D&D to continue being D&D. Some of these are mechanical and others are flavor oriented.
* Stories inspired by the works of the authors listed in the appendix of the 1e AD&D DMG. Robert Howard, Tolkien, De Camp, Vance, Moorcock, and others. This inspiration can include many genres, especially fantasy, sci-fi, horror, and a weird mix of these that pulp writers seemed to pull off well. D&D takes cues from the medieval period but is not limited by it. It is inspired by cultures from all over the world and these cultures are combined in surprising ways. A Babylonian inspired ziggurat can stand in the woods just down the way from a medieval village. Stories are about ancient cultures and the evils they harbored, fabulous treasures, and daring deeds. It is about exploration and using what you find to help fund future adventures. Adventure sites also tend to be exotic in some way, even if that just means it lies beneath the earth.
* Morality is a measurable and physical thing. Alignment serves as the mechanic for this expression and it does its job well. Spells and magic items utilize an individual's current moral stance to their advantage. The nine alignments do provide a wide range of behavior and changing alignment is possible.
* Strength, Dexterity, Consitution, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma are the standard stats. How you express those mechanically might change but what they represent is important.
* Vancian magic is the core magic system. Adding new systems and altering Vancian slightly is acceptable but the familiar cast and forget method is a core part of D&D and should remain the norm for most worlds.
* The four basic classes, fighter, cleric, rogue, and wizard, are necessary. Everything else is gravy but helps round out the game in fun and interesting ways. Adding base classes is nothing new to the game so when 3.x did it with a vengeance I wasn't upset.
* Dungeons are part of the game's name. Dungeons of varying sizes must litter the world. It doesn't matter how little sense it all makes, the dungeons are necessary.
* An impossible array of creatures inhabit the D&D game. While certain creatures should appear in every edition (orcs, chromatic and metallic dragons, goblins, drow, displacer beasts, beholders, etc.) the game should always be adding monsters to the mix. Creatures are a big part of the whole culture and the variety in which these beasties come is necessary to the game.
* Saving throws help facilitate a need in-game. More than that they allow players to feel like they have control over their character's destinies. Making saves static steals that away from the player.
*AC and THAC0/BaB as the abstract mechanics for combat. THAC0 and BaB are very similar in theory, they are simply the inverse of each other. So while it might seem like the change was dramatic, it is the same theory just handled differently. AC is a great way of taking something as complex as armor and turning into a simple mechanic. Once again, the mechanic has changed over time but the theory behind it has remained the same.
*Hit points as an abstraction of true injury, the ability to turn a deadly strike into a flesh wound, pure stubborness, and overall hardiness.
*The core races currently featured in the PHB are about as odd as the core PHB should get. The occasional tiefling or kobold is fun but the core races should make up the bulk of a party and the core PHB should feature them exclusively. "Odd" races help the game feel exotic and fantastical. Heck, a party of "odd" races can be fun for a short while but it seems most players eventually go back to the standard races eventually. These are the baseline on which all other cultures can be judged in game. Racial additions should be done in other venues.
These are the things I can think of right now. I doubt there are really many more. These things make D&D what is to me. If a game removes some of these elements then you get further and further away from the game. It might make for a great game with lots of interesting options (True20 comes to mind) but it is a different game. 3.5 at the end of its life was beginning to lose some of what made it D&D. With that said, I think the game could still be called D&D with confidence because the core remained the same.
As for why 4e might not be D&D? I can't quite answer that yet. Some of the playtest stories seem to feel a bit like D&D. I am still unsure about the mechanics because I have not seen enough to pass judgement. The new races definitely make me think the game is taking a different turn. I will have to see how much damage they do to Vancian magic before I am certain the new magic system is too far removed from the original.
|
|
Well.. what is the big difference between rolling 1d20+bonus VS fixed save (like a DC... as all the other rolls of the game) and rolling a Save (1d20 + save bonus) vs a DC?
Mechanically it might be very much the same, just inverted. I don't know yet. I think taking saves out of the hands of the players is a mistake. I know making that saving throws can be an important and often tense moment in game. Making that roll yourself gives a sense of drama to that moment. In the end, the only person you can blame for your character's death is yourself and your crappy roll. Perhaps some blame can be placed on the DM's NPC and its difficult save DC. In any case the burden lies on the player for the sake of his character. I don't know if I explained that well. Its hard to explain a feeling that has very little logic behind it.
With the other "inversions" introduced in 3e (AC and BaB) the power still rested wth the players.
No players I know would be anything less then totally pissed if I had a dragon roll a critical on his breath weapon and there was a TPK because they don't roll their saves anymore. Way more pissed then if they all rolled "1" on their saves and there was a TPK.
Alleynbard:
Nope, you explained yourself well enough. I share the exact same opinon as you on having static, DM issued sorts of saves. Big mistake. Many people who already play I suspect will be uncomfortable with this arrangement, even if they understand that mechanically its quicker and mathmatically about the same. When WOTC removed saves to quicken the game at the expense of fun and player/DM relations they failed to look at the bigger picture. I suspect many people currently playing may use this static number and ask the players to make their own save. New players may not care as much since they have not used the previous saving throw system anyway.
No players I know would be anything less then totally pissed if I had a dragon roll a critical on his breath weapon and there was a TPK because they don't roll their saves anymore. Way more pissed then if they all rolled "1" on their saves and there was a TPK.
In fact, this ties into a subject on another thread...how are Action Points suppose to work if players aren't making their own rolls anymore?
In fact, this ties into a subject on another thread...how are Action Points suppose to work if players aren't making their own rolls anymore?
As a boost to "AC"?
Greg
No players I know would be anything less then totally pissed if I had a dragon roll a critical on his breath weapon and there was a TPK because they don't roll their saves anymore. Way more pissed then if they all rolled "1" on their saves and there was a TPK.
Actually, in my experience, when every member of my party (except the lucky rogue) failed their saves against a trap and I rolled high enough on damage that I TPK'd, (except for the lucky rogue,) they were all pretty darn ticked at the module.
To me, the lesson to be learned is avoiding putting Players in a situation where one round can TPK them all is more important than whether we DMs do the rolls or they do.
(Fortunately, I'd misread the range of the trap in the module, so I was easily able to take back the nigh-TPK.)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
No players I know would be anything less then totally pissed if I had a dragon roll a critical on his breath weapon and there was a TPK because they don't roll their saves anymore. Way more pissed then if they all rolled "1" on their saves and there was a TPK.Actually, in my experience, when every member of my party (except the lucky rogue) failed their saves against a trap and I rolled high enough on damage that I TPK'd, (except for the lucky rogue,) they were all pretty darn ticked at the module.
To me, the lesson to be learned is avoiding putting Players in a situation where one round can TPK them all is more important than whether we DMs do the rolls or they do.
(Fortunately, I'd misread the range of the trap in the module, so I was easily able to take back the nigh-TPK.)
it's my understanding though, that the weakness is the crit.
As in (unerrata) Saga, if an area effect hits a 20, everything in there gets critted. This means that 1 in 20 of the area effects are going to be randomly crippling and destructive.
The rules play a big role in it, that's true (and I actually like many of the pure mechanical aspects we already know about 4e - though I don't like others, I like almost none of the flavour parts), but one thing I always liked about D&D is that you could take it and play it with a big range of fantasy worlds, whether you think them up yourself, adapt something from a book, movie, computer game or the like, or whether you just let someone do the work and get a campaign setting.
The more I hear about 4e, the more it seems to me that 4e doesn't work that way. It makes tons of very specific assumptions about how the world is set up and bolts them down double-secure to the rules, making it much harder to use it for games that don't share these assumptions. If it becomes too much work for me, and I don't like the game world they hard-wired into the game, I don't see why I should bother with 4e.
Alleynbard:
Nope, you explained yourself well enough. I share the exact same opinon as you on having static, DM issued sorts of saves. Big mistake. Many people who already play I suspect will be uncomfortable with this arrangement, even if they understand that mechanically its quicker and mathmatically about the same. When WOTC removed saves to quicken the game at the expense of fun and player/DM relations they failed to look at the bigger picture. I suspect many people currently playing may use this static number and ask the players to make their own save. New players may not care as much since they have not used the previous saving throw system anyway.
I have to agree. I just ran my group through the middle of the Skinsaw Murders. I couldnt imagine the same session with me making all the rolls instead of them making saves.
D&D is spelling your name backwards to name your character.
D&D is cheering at twenties and weeping at ones.
|
|
4E ain't D&D
Because
It ain't been released yet....It is just a bunch Hype and unpublished promises subject to change without any given notice.
Its a Vague attempt to turn D&D into a Living VIDEO GAME
AD&D is D&D is D&D because its been published
2nd Edition is D&D because its been published
3rd Edition is D&D because its been published
3.5 Edition is D&D because its been published
D&D is Rust Monsters.
D&D is hiding your Monster Manual from your mother so she doesn't see the Succubus and think you are engaged in some sort of softcore porn game.
D&D is Coke and Doritos in the basement on prom night.
D&D is making your little brother cry because you backstabbed his cleric just to get a ring of protection.
D&D is believing that you can rob from the rich and give to the poor.
D&D is standing toe to toe against your fears.
D&D is sneaking in a back alley.
D&D is awkward and unsure of itself.
D&D is really freaking out because some Green Slime got on your boots.
D&D is justifying ownership of a ridiculously overpowered piece of artillery by saying, "I rolled for it!"
|
So it would seem that there are four facets:
1) flavor - party up, get all subterranean, kill critters, steal their stuff
2) rules - checkbox list of must haves like race, class, level, STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA, etc.
3) setting - the imaginary high-fantasy worlds that must follow some set cosmology or else ... grrrrr
4) fun - coke, dorritos, laughs, etc.
Some folks need just one of these and some need all four