|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I have finally pinpointed the hesitancy I have to 4th Edition. I was initially curious, but slowly disenchanted as more information has been released.
As representatives of 4th Ed. have stated, they wanted to make the rules clean and effortless for the players. I think this is the problem.
When Gygax (RIP) and Arneson created what eventually became D&D they created a game to fulfill a role (ie. "let's simulate a medieval setting focused on combat, what rules do we need...what if magic is involved...what if someone does X or Y..."). The end result was a series of oddball rules designed to serve an open-ended purpose so that players could try to do anything and eventually live another life in another world (I liken this to codified rules to children's pretend games). I felt 3.X was an improvement on this. This is a design-down philosophy, in which the goal - anything is possible - is set first and then the method devised. The rules exist to keep everything fair and consistent, to manage expected outcomes and ensure everyone has fun regardless of their choices in game.
4th Edition seems (from the designers admission) to have been a design-up philosophy (make up good rules, then watch the outcome). Sure it might be the best game ever made, it might be balanced, fast and easy and never confuse anyone, and it might, just might, be really fun to play...
But if I want to play a well-planned game, I can play chess. In chess the rules come first, there is no extraneous result. This is why I feel 4th Ed. does not "feel" like D&D, because it was not planned as D&D, it was planned as a game.
Agree? Disagree?
Seems sensible. From my perspective, 4e is streamlined where 3.5 is complex. 4e is efficient where 3.5 is rich. 4e feels to me like a game with less interest in speculation. I still think that some great stories can be told with it, and I like many of the things that the 4e design team has come up with, but I am unsurprised that a lot of people who know 3.5 well enough that they do not find it particularly complicated have little interest in 4e.
Hence on a long buried thread, my comparison of 4e as Coca-Cola to 3.5e's wine. I didn't mean that as an insult to the new edition. Just a recognition that the two versions bring very different things to the table (and maybe a small reference to the fact that a some of wine connaisseurs really, really don't like Coke).
I had many reasons for not being interested in 4th edition, but you have struck on one of them, but for me I guess I would describe it a bit differently.
I like my games being complete and working well. I have played 1st edition and 3.0/3.5 with a smattering of 2nd, so as far as I'm concerned, all editions achieve this. I do not want them wrapped up so tightly however that every little gaming twinge is fixed. I got into RPG because I like to think, solve problems, and think of solutions in which supposed faulty game mechanics are the cause.
Example, I hear a lot of complaining about the so called "15 minute work day". To me, this is not a problem. If the wizard foolishly expends their spells so early then the character needs to find other ways to make themselves useful as the party continues. If the player doesn't enjoy swinging a staff or throwing daggers then the player needs to learn to either conserve his or her spells or acquire magical items such as wands and staffs to ride parts of their day out. To me, this supposed fault in the rule is no fault at all, it makes the game challenging, which to me is fun. So for me, fixing something like this from a mechanic point of view with abilities per encounter for example, just means I am not required to think anymore. A disappointment so far as I'm concerned.
Rule condensing. Some say 3.5 has to many rules, you have to look things up to often. I like this. I like to read. I like to say, "how did that spell work? How does drowning damage work?" I also like to occasionally find a rule with a bit of vagueness or contridiction to it. It makes me think, evaluate the rule, come up with a suitable answer, give me something to discuss with the players as well arrive at a solution. Granted, I don't want this all the time, but every few games it is nice to have the brain excercised.
4th edition didn't feel like it wanted to offer me these things. They advertised it as being clunky free. Sure I realize that it probably false advertising and I know full well that they can't create what is essentially a completely new game without having these clunkers. But just being marketed that way was one more turn off.
I like my imperfections, they make me think, which is why I like to play and create games. The game should make me think!
And supposedly for some reason 4th Edition, which you have not played yet, does not stimulate thinking.
For me 4th Edition is an improvement. The improvement comes from being more easily playable and with a clear philosophy behind the mechanics. Even I who hated cleric I'm tempted to try him out. And having players in my group that never tried a spellcasting class because they didn't want to bother themselves with the complexities of spellcasting, I'm happy that now can have the freedom of picking a spellcasting class since the differences with fighters, etc is minimized and therefore more easily and in less time understood. As 3 Edition was a huge improvement over 2nd, 4th is also an improvement (though not as big). I agree with the fact that maybe is too early for a new edition but as long as it is an improvement and clearly very different than 3rd I do not care. Others do and it's ok with me.
Now, I don't write all these things to try to convert anyone to the 4th Edition but I'm tired of all the talking about the 'feel' of 4th.
(Before anyone torch me about my post I'll just mention that I am from Greece and I have no ties with WotC)
I had many reasons for not being interested in 4th edition, but you have struck on one of them, but for me I guess I would describe it a bit differently.
I like my games being complete and working well. I have played 1st edition and 3.0/3.5 with a smattering of 2nd, so as far as I'm concerned, all editions achieve this. I do not want them wrapped up so tightly however that every little gaming twinge is fixed. I got into RPG because I like to think, solve problems, and think of solutions in which supposed faulty game mechanics are the cause.
Example, I hear a lot of complaining about the so called "15 minute work day". To me, this is not a problem. If the wizard foolishly expends their spells so early then the character needs to find other ways to make themselves useful as the party continues. If the player doesn't enjoy swinging a staff or throwing daggers then the player needs to learn to either conserve his or her spells or acquire magical items such as wands and staffs to ride parts of their day out. To me, this supposed fault in the rule is no fault at all, it makes the game challenging, which to me is fun. So for me, fixing something like this from a mechanic point of view with abilities per encounter for example, just means I am not required to think anymore. A disappointment so far as I'm concerned.
Rule condensing. Some say 3.5 has to many rules, you have to look things up to often. I like this. I like to read. I like to say, "how did that spell work? How does drowning damage work?" I also like to occasionally find a rule with a bit of vagueness or contridiction to it. It makes me think, evaluate the rule, come up with a suitable answer, give me something to discuss with the players as well arrive at a solution. Granted, I don't want this all the time, but every few games it is nice to have the brain excercised.
4th edition didn't feel like it wanted to offer me these things. They advertised it as being clunky free. Sure I realize that it probably false advertising and I know full well that...
To summarize, you think "game balance" is a myth and believe that games are improved by rules which don't work right?
I was going to say something insulting, like a recommendation of F.A.T.A.L., but I just don't have the heart.
Burrito Al Pastor wrote:
To summarize, you think "game balance" is a myth and believe that games are improved by rules which don't work right?
I was going to say something insulting, like a recommendation of F.A.T.A.L., but I just don't have the heart.
No where did I say this what-so-ever. You sir have done this to me before, taking my words and twisting the meaning around in order to belittle me. You did this some time ago and as of that night I wrote you off as someone I shall not discuss with. I post for enjoyment and friendliness and expect the same in turn. If my opinion disagrees with another I choose to pass on making return comments for doing so only serves to create damages. Such responses are not polite nor necessary. This is the only repsonse I shall give you. Feel free to ignore my posts for I have ignored yours for some time. Have a nice day!
I regret speaking to anyone this way, but I will when necessary! My sincere apoligize to those who read it.
I can see how I could be making some faulty assumptions in thinking that "there is no 15 minute adventuring workday" -> "game balance is a silly idea", but I honestly can't imagine there's any serious argument to be made that you aren't claiming that games are better when their rules don't always work.
You just can't talk to some people. :p
If the worst thing people can say about 4th edition is that all the rules are designed to work well together... well, that's a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one.
Hiya.
I'm gonna agree with Eileen there. For me, I like games that require a DM and players to think when something comes up that isn't specifically covered in the rules. I like a system that is a skeleton structure...not one that has three 2x4's nailed together like an "A" surrounded by lots of sparkle-flash bits like it was on display somewhere in Vegas.
The "feel" of 4e, from all the info I've read (dev journels, sneak-peaks, forum slips from developers/playtesters, etc.), seems to be going down the path of "the rules are dirt simple and boring, so lets dazzle them with lots of eye-candy while we feed them all the Halloween candy they want" type of approach. The purpose of the rules are to excite the customers with snazzy WHIZZ-BANG! goodies, and no care for the long-term gamers. It seems to me that WotC doesn't care about market retention; as long as they can dazzle newcomers into forking over a few hundred bucks between the group members, they don't care that in 6 to 10 months those people will quite and move onto something old or different.
Oh, and I'm sick of being told (either outright, or, more commonly, by innuendo) that "previous versions of the game SUCK...and so does your campaign because you've been using such inferior rules".
Bottom line, 4e feels like the movie "Idiocracy" to me (cater to the lowest common denominator and all that).
^_^
Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel. Insult those of us looking forward to it a bit more while you're at it.
As a general rule, people explaining why they like what they like works a lot better than people explaining why someone else shouldn't like what they like.
Thanks for the support pming, much appreciated. I am always interested in friendly dscussion. I like to think of RPG's as more than just sitting down and playing a game. They are creative in ways that other types of games are not, thus they exercise the imagination. Part of this excercise and fun comes from trying to understand the material. Its like being a kid and reading Gary Gygax's books and modules. At the time, many of his words were simply to big for me and as a result I loved it. Learn, Learn, Learn. A chalenge. This is fun. I recall the first time I ran Lost Cavarns of Tsjocanth, I was so lost in trying to understand and picture what some of the more complex rooms looked like and how they worked. I ran it a few years back again and it was a piece of cake. The mind matures with age and with that I still want the challenge in text reading and once in a while trying to sit down outside of the game and read and re-read a section, beacuse when you do figure it out, its like, wow, I accomplished something and I enjoyed it. I like sound games and I am a strong advocate for game balance. But I don't necessarly want every nail flush and screw perfectly tightened.
Thanks for the support pming, much appreciated. I am always interested in friendly dscussion. I like to think of RPG's as more than just sitting down and playing a game. They are creative in ways that other types of games are not, thus they exercise the imagination. Part of this excercise and fun comes from trying to understand the material. Its like being a kid and reading Gary Gygax's books and modules. At the time, many of his words were simply to big for me and as a result I loved it. Learn, Learn, Learn. A chalenge. This is fun. I recall the first time I ran Lost Cavarns of Tsjocanth, I was so lost in...
But, why do you believe that the same experience cannot be felt with 4th? Why do you judge it before you have seen it and you judge it about things that don't have anything to do with mechanics?
Do you also judge people before you have the chance to speak with them.
Try it and then judge it. Peace.
Thanks for the support pming, much appreciated. I am always interested in friendly dscussion. I like to think of RPG's as more than just sitting down and playing a game. They are creative in ways that other types of games are not, thus they exercise the imagination. Part of this excercise and fun comes from trying to understand the material. Its like being a kid and reading Gary Gygax's books and modules. At the time, many of his words were simply to big for me and as a result I loved it. Learn, Learn, Learn. A chalenge. This is fun. I recall the first time I ran Lost Cavarns of Tsjocanth, I was so lost in...
But, why do you believe that the same experience cannot be felt with 4th? Why do you judge it before you have seen it and you judge it about things that don't have anything to do with mechanics?
Do you also judge people before you have the chance to speak with them.
Try it and then judge it. Peace.
I didn't say that the same experience couldn't be had with 4th edition. I said that I like the exercise in thinking and I was talking about all RPGs. It is something that these games can offer that I appreciate. If any game changes to become mechanically superior, great, it improved in that direction, nothing wrong with that, I am all for that and game balance. I still like some imperfection as well for the reasons previously stated. If 4th edition rules are tighter than a drum than many will enjoy it, makes for a better game. If 4th edition has some loose screws, great, then I still have the imperfections I like to ponder.
I was not and am not insulting 4th edition nor those who would like to play it. I was merely responding to the original poster in a form of agreeance of what was an initial turn off for me. Without reading the rules one cannot say the game IS this way, what I am saying is I like slightly less than perfect games (any kind of game not just D&D or any version of it). It was merely a turn off not a turn on. I hope 4th edition offers what people are looking for. I think that is good. I don't understand how me saying that I like some kind of imperfection in a game is an issue in any kind of way. I like to learn, I like to exercise the mind, if 4th edition give people that, then great. I was merely pointing out that this is something I like in a RPG. That's it, that's all I was saying. Nothing more, nothing less.
No I don't judge people before I have the opportunity to speak with them or post back and forth. If their approach to me is belittling I tend to try and ignore them. If I tend to disagree with someone I tend to try and not make it known because I don't want to insult nor hurt anyone's feelings. In the above situation, there was an evening some time ago in which I posted an simple post of some sorts and they posted repeatedly about it making fun of me and my ideas, twistng my words around, and belittling me, thus I made a decision of how I feel. If that is being judgmental, so be it. Thanks for your concern.
I didn't say that the same experience couldn't be had with 4th edition. I said that the marketing makes ME feel that way. I also stated that with as many rule changes that have been made it would seem very difficult to screw and nail down such soundness in the game, just as previous editions. I am not insulting 4th edition nor those who would like to play it. I was merely responding to the original poster in a form of agreeance of what was an initial turn off. Without reading the rules one cannot say the game IS this way, what I am saying is I like slightly less than perfect games (any kind of game not just D&D or any version of it). It was merely a turn off not a turn on. I hope 4th edition offers what people are looking for. I think that is good. I don't understand how me saying that I like some kind of imperfection in a game is an issue in any kind of way. I like to learn, I like to exercise the mind, if 4th edition give people that, then great. I was merely pointing out that this is something I like in a RPG. That's it, that's...
I understood that you need to agree with the first post but for what reason? All of us here have told how they feel about 4th in other threads so why do it again?
And I truly do not understand the less than perfect games arguement. I do not think that there is a person that thinks 4th edition is the perfect game even though I am a pro fan.
I understood that you need to agree with the first post but for what reason? All of us here have told how they feel about 4th in other threads so why do it again?And I truly do not understand the less than perfect games arguement. I do not think that there is a person that thinks 4th edition is the perfect game even though I am a pro fan.
I edited the above post in a minor way, though it most likely doesn't change any thing.
Why did I agree with the poster? Because I like some imperfections. I like it when I occasionally have to read and re-read a section of the rules, perhaps many times over. Then when I understand it, I feel like I accomplished something. I like it when sometimes I have to make a judgment call because the rules don't cover something or there is a slight contradiction. I picked up this enjoyment from 1st edition because there were less rules and so one needed to work with it more. I enjoyed this.
I am not and was not picking on 4th edition nor those who are excited about it. Please understand this was not part of my posts and if it appeared so it was unintentional. I am tired of these edition wars of all kinds. I'm trying to kill this conversation because I feel like I am intentionally being drug through the mud simply to entertain others. This is why I don't like debates only happy discussion. This is not a happy discussion, this is becoming similar to why I don't like to respond to certain posts. They take something I said, turn it around, make implecations that were not there, and make me feel like a piece of crap and bad. Are we done now?
I am not and was not picking on 4th edition nor those who are excited about it. Please understand this was not part of my posts and if it appeared so it was unintentional. I am tired of these edition wars of all kinds. I'm trying to kill this conversation because I feel like I am intentionally being drug through the mud simply to entertain others. This is why I don't like debates only happy discussion. This is not a happy discussion, this is becoming similar to why I don't like to respond to certain posts. They take something I said, turn it around, make implecations that were not there, and make me feel like a piece of crap and bad. Are we done now?
Though I didn't want to drug you into mud, I suppose that yes we are done if that is how you see it. :(
|
I can see how I could be making some faulty assumptions in thinking that "there is no 15 minute adventuring workday" -> "game balance is a silly idea", but I honestly can't imagine there's any serious argument to be made that you aren't claiming that games are better when their rules don't always work.
You just can't talk to some people. :p
If the worst thing people can say about 4th edition is that all the rules are designed to work well together... well, that's a ringing endorsement if I've ever heard one.
You know, EPoI has engaged with you politely, and you seem intent on being offensive. Maybe you think this is kind of funny or clever but all you do is make yourself look like an idiot. As it happens, I don't particularly agree with EPoI' position but I can say it without being belittling. If you want to flame someone, go somewhere else please, or learn to structure your comments with greater courtesy.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hi, Mormegil.
You asked (civilly, I'm quick to add) why people continue to knock 4th Edition, again.
With respect, let me address that.
I think the original poster presented his idea in a reasonable, fresh way. He raised an issue that hasn't received much play. He asked people for their thoughts or comments.
To the original poster:
I see where you're coming from. The "feel" of 4th Edition has been likened to that of a collectible card game, with some merit, but I think the issue is both wider and deeper than that.
Since the beginnings of Third Edition D&D, there has been a fundamental shift in the background of game designers, and on their expectations about what game players do, when they're not playing games.
What did the first and second generations of game designers do? They read. You don't make a Vancian magic system without reading Jack Vance! They read Moorcock, and Tolkein and Leiber and so and on. For Western games, they read Westerns, and American history books. For superhero games, they read comics.
And they expected that gamers would be doing the same.
And the goals of game design were influenced by that expectation. D&D, and then AD&D 1st Edition, were designed to allow the people sitting around a table to tell the kinds of stories that they were reading.
(Game designers in the early- to mid-nineties, I suspect, were spending more time watching movies and television shows. The emphasis in licensed TV-show games like the Xena and Hercules[i] RPG, and the "recommended sources" list from [i]Millenium's Edge are my clues.)
By the time 3rd Edition hit the market, there had already been one wave of something-that-will-kill-RPGs (the Magic: the Gathering and CCG deluge), and they were riding the cusp of the next one (the MMORPG computer gaming phenomenon).
What were game designers doing, when they weren't sitting around atable with rulesbooks cracked open? They were playing CCG's, or World of Warcraft.
And that's been influencing game design, since 3rd Edition D&D. That's the internal experiences that developers bring to their jobs.
Now, there are gross simplifications. First generation gamers wee also doing a lot of, say, table-top wargaming. And there are still a lot of serious readers in the gaming industry -- many of them working at Paizo. But that's the impression that I am getting.
Take a look at what the 4th Edition designers saw as problems: combats taking a long time. As opposed to table-top wargames!?! No, as opposed to on-line combats.
I don't think this is exclusive to D&D, or Wizards, or the d20 game engine. Take a look at first-generation World of Darkness versus the new generation. The new stuff has a simpler, less robust game mechanic, a simpler game environment, and faster play.
I don't think that 4th Edition is a "mechanics first, then simulation" game. But I think that both the mechanics and the kind-of-reality-to-be-simulated are being informed by other gaming media.
I think it'll probably be a fine game, in the same way that GURPS is a fine game. But I'm going to stay clear of it, myself, because I want to continue playing 3.5, and I don't want to confuse my game-play with a rules system that's too close. (For the same reason, I'm avoiding reading both the D&D Miniatures rules, and the Pathfinder alpha rules.)
Spoiler:
Since the beginnings of Third Edition D&D, there has been a fundamental shift in the background of game designers, and on their expectations about what game players do, when they're not playing games.What did the first and second generations of game designers do? They read. You don't make a Vancian magic system without reading Jack Vance! They read Moorcock, and Tolkein and Leiber and so and on. For Western games, they read Westerns, and American history books. For superhero games, they read comics.
And they expected that gamers would be doing the same.
And the goals of game design were influenced by that expectation. D&D, and then AD&D 1st Edition, were designed to allow the people sitting around a table to tell the kinds of stories that they were reading.
(Game designers in the early- to mid-nineties, I suspect, were spending more time watching movies and television shows. The emphasis in licensed TV-show games like the Xena and Hercules[i] RPG, and the "recommended sources" list from [i]Millenium's Edge are my clues.)
By the time 3rd Edition hit the market, there had already been one wave of something-that-will-kill-RPGs (the Magic: the Gathering and CCG deluge), and they were riding the cusp of the next one (the MMORPG computer gaming phenomenon).
What were game designers doing, when they weren't sitting around atable with rulesbooks cracked open? They were playing CCG's, or World of Warcraft.
And that's been influencing game design, since 3rd Edition D&D. That's the internal experiences that developers bring to their jobs.
Now, there are gross simplifications. First generation gamers wee also doing a lot of, say, table-top wargaming. And there are still a lot of serious readers in the gaming industry -- many of them working at Paizo. But that's the impression that I am getting.
Take a look at what the 4th Edition designers saw as problems: combats taking a long time. As opposed to table-top wargames!?! No, as opposed to on-line combats.
I don't think this is exclusive to D&D, or Wizards, or the d20 game engine. Take a look at first-generation World of Darkness versus the new generation. The new stuff has a simpler, less robust game mechanic, a simpler game environment, and faster play.
Very insightful stuff, Chris. I think this is the heart of the "4E doesn't feel like D&D" sentiment. You've definitely given me food for thought.
Since the beginnings of Third Edition D&D, there has been a fundamental shift in the background of game designers, and on their expectations about what game players do, when they're not playing games.What did the first and second generations of game designers do? They read. You don't make a Vancian magic system without reading Jack Vance! They read Moorcock, and Tolkein and Leiber and so and on. For Western games, they read Westerns, and American history books. For superhero games, they read comics.
And they expected that gamers would be doing the same.
And the goals of game design were influenced by that expectation. D&D, and then AD&D 1st Edition, were designed to allow the people sitting around a table to tell the kinds of stories that they were reading.
(Game designers in the early- to mid-nineties, I suspect, were spending more time watching movies and television shows. The emphasis in licensed TV-show games like the Xena and Hercules[i] RPG, and the "recommended sources" list from [i]Millenium's Edge are my clues.)
By the time 3rd Edition hit the market, there had already been one wave of something-that-will-kill-RPGs (the Magic: the Gathering and CCG deluge), and they were riding the cusp of the next one (the MMORPG computer gaming phenomenon).
What were game designers doing, when they weren't sitting around atable with rulesbooks cracked open? They were playing CCG's, or World of Warcraft.
And...
Well, I partially agree with you on this one.
I believe current game designers have a good knowledge of medieval fantasy. They are certainly not only former CCG or MMORPG players.
However, the fact is, game designers don't make games for themselves. They make games for others to play. More specifically, they make games for the current generation to play.
I can see that for the current generation, Harry Potter, Final Fantasy and WOW are more reference than Jack Vance or Moorcock (No offense to 4E enthusiastics here. I myself I'm a 4E enthusiastic. The "enthusiastic" word is very tough to write!).
For myself, although I play D&D for some reasonable time, I actually never were a fan of many things rather than D&D. I never had patience to read either books or comics, rarely watch any TV series, and haven't found much time for videogames. So, I think that's the reason I'm very open minded when a new edition comes. As long as I can tell the same tales I told in the previous editions, and the mechanics are fine, I don't have any problem with it.
Why have a forum at all, really? Its not like we are covering new ground very often. If people only posted their opinion on something once, you'd see pretty darn little activity on any of these forums.
So all the activity here is about people posting their opinions about different topics.
Secondly, Eileen very clearly stated she felt the game was being marketed as a shiny new perfect system where all the flaws are smoothed out. Which didn't appeal to her at all. Further, she also stated that she didn't believe such a game was possible, but the fact that they are trying to move that way wasn't something she appreciated. So your whole point about her pre judging the game is entirely misinformed. She's judging the marketing and design intent, not the result. And that, she has sufficient information to do.
Then do not buy a maybe good product because of bad marketing. If someone should be upset of their marketing strategies should be WotC stockholders. If that makes sense to you then I'll let it pass.
Hi, Mormegil.
You asked (civilly, I'm quick to add) why people continue to knock 4th Edition, again.
With respect, let me address that.
I think the original poster presented his idea in a reasonable, fresh way. He raised an issue that hasn't received much play. He asked people for their thoughts or comments.
To the original poster:
I see where you're coming from. The "feel" of 4th Edition has been likened to that of a collectible card game, with some merit, but I think the issue is both wider and deeper than that.
[spoiler]
Since the beginnings of Third Edition D&D, there has been a fundamental shift in the background of game designers, and on their expectations about what game players do, when they're not playing games.What did the first and second generations of game designers do? They read. You don't make a Vancian magic system without reading Jack Vance! They read Moorcock, and Tolkein and Leiber and so and on. For Western games, they read Westerns, and American history books. For superhero games, they read comics.
And they expected that gamers would be doing the same.
And the goals of game design were influenced by that expectation. D&D, and then AD&D 1st Edition, were designed to allow the people sitting around a table to tell the kinds of stories that they were reading.
(Game designers in the early- to mid-nineties, I suspect, were spending more time watching movies and television shows. The emphasis in licensed TV-show games like the Xena and Hercules[i] RPG, and the "recommended sources" list from [i]Millenium's Edge are my clues.)
By the time 3rd Edition hit the market, there had already been one wave of something-that-will-kill-RPGs (the Magic: the Gathering and CCG deluge), and they were riding the cusp of the next one (the MMORPG computer gaming phenomenon).
What were game designers doing, when they weren't sitting around atable with rulesbooks cracked open? They were playing CCG's, or World of Warcraft.
And...
Now Chris, you certainly point something here which I have not heard from someone else presented in such a constructed way (well, someone might have posted something similar but I don't read every thread).
And I fully respect your opinion, and everyone else for that matter, that you want to stay with 3.5.
|
Thanks Jal, Trey, Eileen and Chris, I found your posts thoughtful insights, each from a different angle, and I tend to agree with them all. Though 4E may yet surprise me once I read it, your posts reflect my current feelings.
As for the 15 minute work day, I agree with Timothy's experience. But it does depend on the type of adventure you're playing, and how it is written/structured/presented.
15 minute work days don't work too well in a dungeon crawl where monsters rush at you from every door you open. However, an adventure in which encounters are broken up into more digestable bites, such as the first few scenes of Burnt Offerings or Edge of Anarchy, brief encounters or missions occurring naturally over a period of days, the 15 minute work day isn't a problem at all.
Granted, this means one style of adventure is more workable under a 15 minute work day than another, but a good workman never blames his tools. I think Paizo's adventures do a better job than most of working within the confines of the game.
|
|
I would add that different classes appeal to different play styles, different personalities, and different levels of experience. This is a good thing.
Give the new player the fighter or barbarian. They're simple - hit things, roll damage.
Looking for something more? There's the rogue, monk, ranger, each with their own bag of tricks.
Ready for a challenge? Try a spellcaster, learn resource management, buff your team-mates, battlefield control, blow things up, spells that break the rules.
The game can be as simple, or as complex, as you're ready to explore. I like that the game can be different things for different people, and that this is one of the strengths of the game.
You have people that always play fighters, others that revel in the skill monkey role, or others again that enjoy managing their spell resources to save the day. Different styles suit different people.
Not saying this won't be the case with 4E, but it does seem that they're trying to level out the differences between the classes for a similar play experience.
|
|
When Gygax (RIP) ... This is a design-down philosophy...4th Edition seems (from the designers admission) to have been a design-up philosophy
Design-up and design-down are good terms. I've likened it elsewhere to "crunch serves the fluff" in that you start with fluff and build a game (crunch) around it. If the fluff is "Alligators_in_Space_with_lasers" I probably won't won't design a spell-casting system. This, in your vernacular, would be design-down. Down from the "vision" or "fluff".
4E does indeed seem to have a Design-up approach. However, I think in this case it is also design-down. The "fluff" or vision they are trying to design crunch around is extremely vague. They've steered away froma specific setting and moved towards a formless, vague "points-of-light super fantasy"...which I am sure any of you reading are thinking "wtf does that mean?". Yeah, what does it mean? It means as long as the mechanics fit in that vague description of a game, those mechanics are allowed. Some designers do this and have very crappy mechanics. At the very least, the mechanics seem pretty solid, even if they serve a very vague, generic, super-fantasy fluff.
I would add that different classes appeal to different play styles, different personalities, and different levels of experience. This is a good thing.
Give the new player the fighter or barbarian. They're simple - hit things, roll damage.
Looking for something more? There's the rogue, monk, ranger, each with their own bag of tricks.
Ready for a challenge? Try a spellcaster, learn resource management, buff your team-mates, battlefield control, blow things up, spells that break the rules.
The game can be as simple, or as complex, as you're ready to explore. I like that the game can be different things for different people, and that this is one of the strengths of the game.
You have people that always play fighters, others that revel in the skill monkey role, or others again that enjoy managing their spell resources to save the day. Different styles suit different people.
Not saying this won't be the case with 4E, but it does seem that they're trying to level out the differences between the classes for a similar play experience.
I agree that providing classes to different play styles and different personalities is a good thing. What I don't agree is to provide classes for different levels of experience.
My first D&D character (OD&D version 5) was a magic-user. What? I was a beginner, so was I supposed to pick a character that "only rolls for hits and damage"? Similarly, I know people who play for decades and love fighters and barbarians. Because they want their characters to be in the frontline, engaging the big monsters face-to-face and taking hits in place of their companions, not because they want "easy-to-play" characters.
If a system can make all classes interesting and challenging to play, and still retain an unique flavor for each of them, then I believe it's a superior system. That said, I don't know if 4th edition is this system. I agree that the pregen characters presented from DDXP seem a bit "similar", but they are only 1st-level characters. The "party role" idea seems to contribute to the idea of giving separate "feels" for each class.
In my opinion, D&D 3e/3.5 vastly improved over its previous incarnations, by making all classes' players being able to make choices other than "roll to hit then roll for damage". Actually, these improvements were brought in 2E by the Player's Option series (the "black books"). The black books, however, also slowed down the game table and introduced many unbalances; both problems were considerably reduced by D&D 3e. And I hope we can see an even greater improvement on 4e.
|
|
Thanks Jal, Trey, Eileen and Chris, I found your posts thoughtful insights, each from a different angle, and I tend to agree with them all. Though 4E may yet surprise me once I read it, your posts reflect my current feelings.
As for the 15 minute work day, I agree with Timothy's experience. But it does depend on the type of adventure you're playing, and how it is written/structured/presented.
15 minute work days don't work too well in a dungeon crawl where monsters rush at you from every door you open. However, an adventure in which encounters are broken up into more digestable bites, such as the first few scenes of Burnt Offerings or Edge of Anarchy, brief encounters or missions occurring naturally over a period of days, the 15 minute work day isn't a problem at all.
Granted, this means one style of adventure is more workable under a 15 minute work day than another, but a good workman never blames his tools. I think Paizo's adventures do a better job than most of working within the confines of the game.
I have had a similar experience. With some guidance, any player can make a wizard useful all day without at-will spells. But some adventures work better with 3.X than others.
Dungeon crawls literally take forever, because you never seem to move anywhere as you get bogged down (but then again, Tomb of Horrors took forever too). I ran two Red Hand of Doom campaigns, and they flew by because all the resting was done during travel times between encounters. 3.X seems to lend itself more to a LotR-style epic adventure.
As to other posts, it seems more than a few others have been feeling the same thing. It does seem most of the "feel" of 4th Edition is a result of marketing. As I posted, I will try before I buy. But it took me until 3.5 to realize it was a stable property and start buying thousands of dollars of books and minis. If Hasbro keeps releasing new editions every 5 years I will stop buying from them, I just can't afford it.
So I question the marketing at Hasbro: you gamble my $100/month of guaranteed steady sales for the chance that 1 new person will buy the core books for 4th Edition every month for the next 10 years? I know, other variables are in play, but at the simplest level this is what they NEED in order to maintain profits.
In a nutshell, I think that 4E still stimulates plenty of thinking, just not "halt the game to look up rules", thinking.
I like to read myself. I read and write all the time. I dont expect games to read like a textbook, however, and require numerous re-reading in order to properly play the game. Well, unless I havent played the game in a long time, like Arkham Horror.
4E just sounds better to me because the designers stopped trying to shoehorn the rules to make it mostly like what you used to play however many years ago. Things fit better.
Chris Mortika that is one of the best posts I have read in a long time.
It is an excellent summary of my observations that I had not collected/connected into a complete thought.
As to other posts, it seems more than a few others have been feeling the same thing. It does seem most of the "feel" of 4th Edition is a result of marketing. As I posted, I will try before I buy. But it took me until 3.5 to realize it was a stable property and start buying thousands of dollars of books and minis. If Hasbro keeps releasing new editions every 5 years I will stop buying from them, I just can't afford it.
So I question the marketing at Hasbro: you gamble my $100/month of guaranteed steady sales for the chance that 1 new person will buy the core books for 4th Edition every month for the next 10 years? I know, other variables are in play, but at the simplest level this is what they NEED in order to maintain profits.
I guess it's because I live in Brasil and people here are poorer but... it's very rare here to see someone spending $1200 a year on D&D stuff. I have a friend which spends about that, but he is a fanatic (again, for brazilian standards). We have an habit of borrowing books much more than buying. I myself have bought about 6 2E books and 3 3E books, and some dice and miniatures.
Anyway, my points are:
- Do you think most D&D players there in U.S. or wherever you live, spend $100/month on D&D stuff?
- Since as the edition becomes older, new material has a tendency of becoming more complex, more unbalanced, and less original (we can say that for both 3.5 e 2E), if Wizards publish 3.5 for another 5 years, would the same D&D players keep spending $100/month for the next 5 years?
- D&D Insider will attract people who weren't playing the game "face-to-face", either because they prefer to play online (for instance, MMO players), but also RPGists who are unable to play "face-to-face" for some reason(physical separation of former group, live in town where is hard to find players, etc). These people will spend $10 a month on DDI subscription, with very reduced costs for WOTC compared to printing books, and potentially may give a lot more profit to WOTC than players like me, which love the game a lot but rarely buy stuff.
So, we have to take 4 factors in consideration:
A - The amount of money that would be spent by current D&D players on 3.5 material in the next 5 years, supposing 3.5 continues
B - The amount of money that will be spent by current D&D players on 4th edition material in the next 5 years
C - The amount of money that would be spent by new D&D players on 3.5 material in the next 5 years, supposing 3.5 continues
D - The amount of money that will be spent by new D&D players on 4th edition material in the next 5 years (which includes DDI players)
Well, I think there is a general consensus that D >> C (>> = "much greater"). But I don't think it's blatantly obvious that A >> B. Or even if A > B.
Where's the dead horse when you need him?
Now, Pete, there were a few good posts in here. ;) I just wish Wizards would post some new 4e content on their site so that there was more to do in this section than kick the same dusty ball around. I thought the piece on the Fomorians was interesting, but what was that, weeks ago?
I wonder if with the wrap-up of the core books, the designers are all sleeping for a week before starting to gear up for the next pile of content. Probably not.
|
|
The Government that Governs best Governs Least.
Does the Game System that Governs Least govern Best?
I disagree. While simplicity is a good benchmark, not at the expense of quality. Simplicity for its own sake is the Simpleton's Outlook.
So if we lower the bar until the most slack-jawed cro-magnon dullard can enjoy D&D do we distill its very essence and enjoyment?
I say yes.
I say that MMORPG's are not innovations that should be applied to tabletop design concept. Being that these were inspired by D&D and modified to fit their environment better, I see this as the Fantasy Gaming Market "feeding on itself".
And what do you get what happens?
Regurgitation.
The very design notes that I read were offensive, the principles being applied seemed shoddily thought out.
"Balance" loses its meaning when each class is redefined to incorporate the ability for each character to "solo". Self-sufficiency is one thing, but the entire point of BEING a party is relying on the various strengths that the others provide, gaps in capabilities being supplemented. Giving each class a power source, at least from an aesthetic angle, seems like overkill. I mean, is it me, or has power-creep pervaded each revision?
It seems more and more like the game is aesthetically designed to cater to adolescent power-fantasy, rather than Fantasy that has various powers. Therein lies the distinction, I think behind the "feel" of the game. I am reminded of comparing a homemade burger to a McDonalds dollar menu. Snazzy packaging, easy and fast, but the McDonald's feels "processed" and artificial.
I am given the same impression.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a complete hater ... I am interested in the cosmology changes and swap-ups with Grazz't going Devil and Asmodeus going Deity . . . and the art and etc is very polished and pretty to sell us on this.
I just . .. guess I am tired of being force-fed junkfood.
The Homemade burger, (3.5) though sloppy and imperfect, to my mind tastes better and is wholly more fulfilling.
|
|
I was not and am not insulting 4th edition nor those who would like to play it. I was merely responding to the original poster in a form of agreeance of what was an initial turn off for me.
I think people missed this.
I feel the same way. As for why the need to reply? Last I checked freedom of speech was one of the amendments, this was a free country and these boards were for open discussion and interchange of ideas.
As for myself, I happen to agree. Now, I WILL try 4th and if I like it I WILL play it. However, the marketting and processing and design methodology I have seen so far, the "FEEL" as the original poster suggested, seems to be a turn off for more than just me, apparently.
As for futility in posting... clearly if proponents of 4th disagree then say so, but try and keep it civil and for the love of G-D topical, yeah?
It seems more and more like the game is aesthetically designed to cater to adolescent power-fantasy, rather than Fantasy that has various powers.
Hah, when I read on the message board about how some people play 3.5 I think the same thing. You know, where people are going on about how they give out 72 point buy, max hit points and a feat at each level. At the same time I sometimes see the reverse, where it seems like the players are basically suffering under the DM's power trip.
But, what I'm trying to say is that I've played most of my 3.5 sessions with a pretty medium, by-the-book power level and I don't really share the concerns about power creep in 4th edition.
Level 1 characters seem stronger, yes. But characters seem to gain power more slowly, and they don't get iterative attacks or two dozen spells by level 12. Without a Constitution bonus to HP, and the magic items to increase that Constitution, characters are going to have less HP, which is good, since without iterative attacks, they'll be doing less damage.
In short, everything we've seen seems to say that the power curve in 4th edition will be less steep than in 3rd edition, which I think I'll find refreshing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still playing 3.5 and having fun every week, but I'm also looking forward to 4th edition. Mainly, it seems that 4e will take a lot of the things that I found fun in 3rd edition, but that came out in a scattered fashion in various splatbooks and build it all into a cohesive part of the core system.
Sorry to interrupt this thread, but a couple of things I wanted to reference in this discussion
To Jal: Thanks for bringing your own insight into 4th edition. Despite what is often said, I don't believe having too much discussion concerning D&D is all that bad (it can be repetative, I'll admit). Because until the new books come out and we all get a chance to see what's it all about, we only have discussion to speculate on where this game, and by extension the RPG hobby, is going.
Considering that D&D in the past was pretty much left to TSR to determine its future (and we know how well that's gone at times) with minimal information to its buyers - the fact that we can have an large open discussion of the state of the game is an amazing evolution. It may seem mudane, but it's interesting to see the insight that comes of it.
I see where you're coming from. The "feel" of 4th Edition has been likened to that of a collectible card game, with some merit, but I think the issue is both wider and deeper than that.
[spoiler]
Chris: Thanks for an interesting post - I think you hit on the head what is part of the issues surrounding table-top RPG's.
You put it better than I did, but I tend to think of it as the "mainstreaming" of fantasy gaming - at least as much RPGs and MMORPG's can be within our society. (And by that I mean primarily American society - not be exclusive)
In assessment; D&D has often in its past been a much more intellectual pursuit - with its origins in fantasy literature and written sources and to some degree, mathematics. In the 1980's, I would say that the success of the game was part of a greater cultural trend - remember that this was the decade that saw the success of the Conan movies, Excalibur, and lots of medieval b-movie clones (usually involving barbarians) especially in what was then the growing rental video market. I think you can attribute the success of basic D&D (not AD&D, mind you) in part to this - it's basic appeal invited a lot of people to check it out. It was AD&D that tended to be for the more hardcore crowd, or at least those interested in a game with greater depth.
I don't mean to imply that you had to be smarter, just that there was a growing difference between who played and why.
I think that the growth of the "Geek Culture" of the 90's, Internet, Harry Potter's appeal (and its clones), the success of several movie franchises (LOTR, Narnia, and some others); and the growth of online games (WOW, Guild Wars, Lineage, Warhammer Online, Vanguard, to name a few) has allowed what was once a fad/sub-culture to become a "mainstream" trend. D&D success is part of this trend; but I think what we are seeing with the new edition is an attempt to make it appeal more within this mainstream framework.
I think this is where Chris is dead-on when he cites what designers are working from in terms of setting and design - its the elements that people are experiencing in the here and now, not necessarily the references to the past. (Mention Michael Moorcock to the current man on the street, and you'll probably get a confused look. Mention JK Rowling, and you'll get at least some recognition to Harry Potter)
It's not that new D&D is designed to be "dumb-downed", but I do think there is an attempt to make it more appealing to a mainstream audience in this initial format - whether you think that makes for a better game or not is something we'll have to see.
And I think that this part of what Jal is referencing when he talks about perception of the game in its current status.
How it will expand will also depend on how gaming trends continue...will they continue to diversify? I can see a trend towards two kinds of D&D - a 4.0 and 3.75 (refering to Paizo's planned design) much as there was a D&D and AD&D market in the past. The nature of the new GSL could also affect what happens in the market as well.
For all we know, we could also have a fantasy gaming decline akin to the one D&D had in the past. Harry Potter comes under fire by Christian activists pretty consistently these days. Some analyst trend that the MMORPG market is getting soft, partially due to economic factors; partially due to WOW's growing monopoly of the market. How D&D develops over the next few years could change again.
The point is there is some perception that the current version and upcoming version are developing from different cultural and industry trends. Whether that will create a better game is unclear yet.
But I think that it's attempts to appeal to a greater mass market at the expense of its previous incarnations (both in mechanics and flavor) has left many people questioning it's capacity to be a good, possibly deeper, game.
My apologies if this seems off track of the original posting.
Not at all, I think it was an excellent post. I would add to it that not only game theme changes over time, but also game design itself. In other words, what is "fun" or "boring" at any given time does not exist in a vacuum either.
It has been said that Blizzard really doesn't invent things, but instead integrates and refines what other people have created. I would say that these refinements are worthy in their own right as being looked at as creativity. Whatever the case, changes made over the years by video game designers have worked their way in, with an extreme emphasis on class balance and reducing the likelihood of character loss as two examples that come to mind. But before there were video games, there were still a lot of influences that made the definition of interesting and boring shift over time.
All this by way of saying that some of the elements that add the most fun for some people are an irritation and hindrance to others, because people play games for different reasons. What to Eileen is an interesting puzzle to sort out in the game rules feels like getting bogged down to someone else. And they're both right. The posts I find least pleasant from both people who like 3.5 and those who like 4e are the ones that suggest that anyone who feels differently is somehow mentally lacking.
|
|
Not at all, I think it was an excellent post. I would add to it that not only game theme changes over time, but also game design itself. In other words, what is "fun" or "boring" at any given time does not exist in a vacuum either.
It has been said that Blizzard really doesn't invent things, but instead integrates and refines what other people have created. I would say that these refinements are worthy in their own right as being looked at as creativity. Whatever the case, changes made over the years by video game designers have worked their way in, with an extreme emphasis on class balance and reducing the likelihood of character loss as two examples that come to mind. But before there were video games, there were still a lot of influences that made the definition of interesting and boring shift over time.
All this by way of saying that some of the elements that add the most fun for some people are an irritation and hindrance to others, because people play games for different reasons. What to Eileen is an interesting puzzle to sort out in the game rules feels like getting bogged down to someone else. And they're both right. The posts I find least pleasant from both people who like 3.5 and those who like 4e are the ones that suggest that anyone who feels differently is somehow mentally lacking.
I wholeheartedly agree. The people designing 4ed. are obviously capable and intelligent enough to get where they are in a small industry - and just like anything else in life, you get out of it what you put into it. That is why I title the thread with "feel" not "intelligence" or "inferiority". The debate is as old as time - as society changes, what do we hold on to and what to we let go?
The nice thing about D&D is that books never go out of date - generations from now people can still play 3.5, or even Chainmail if that is "D&D" to them. Regardless of the evolution of the game, if 4th Edition manages to make even one person interested in Conan or Lord of the Rings or The Wheel of Time, etc, then I call it even.
Now, if D&D ever goes completely ethereal, it could be lost to the ages...
|
Rule condensing. Some say 3.5 has to many rules, you have to look things up to often. I like this. I like to read. I like to say, "how did that spell work? How does drowning damage work?" I also like to occasionally find a rule with a bit of vagueness or contridiction to it. It makes me think, evaluate the rule, come up with a suitable answer, give me something to discuss with the players as well arrive at a solution. Granted, I don't want this all the time, but every few games it is nice to have the brain excercised.
4th edition didn't feel like it wanted to offer me these things. They advertised it as being clunky free. Sure I realize that it probably false advertising and I know full well that...
Actually, I get a different feel. All I get is "New Rules are Cool. New Rules are Different" from Wizards. I don't see this as simplification. I see this as creating a new environment with new problems. If Wizards wanted to just "fix the old" it could have without "remaking it all over again to be cool."
Just my two cents.
In the design notes I've seen for 4e, the idea of things being used comes up a lot. They combined or eliminated monsters that didn't get used much or they thought caused confusion. They repurposed Fomorians as not true giants, and the main bad guys in the Feywild because they were "really neat, but didn't get used much."
Over on the player side, changes were made so that all classes would have something to do every round, and monsters don't get statted like PCs, because, as they put it, why put all that work into something that will be dead in a few rounds, i.e., statting a monster in the same way as a PC results in putting in things that won't get used.
I think this is what the OP is getting at. It's a completely different design philosophy. Despite the repetition of the phrase "it still feels like D&D," the assertion that conversions from one edition to the other are not possible highlights the fact that in many important ways, it is not the same game. Whether the parts being taken out are considered essential parts of what makes D&D D&D is what divides those who think the new edition might be fun from those who think it's not much short of blasphemy.
As for the designers saying "cool" a lot, I've learned from director audio tracks on movies that someone who can be creative in making something is not always the best choice of person to talk about it. While I think it is great that in the tabletop world, developers' names get prominence, shoving them in front of a skeptical crowd is a recipe for missed opportunities and hard feelings.
As for futility in posting... clearly if proponents of 4th disagree then say so, but try and keep it civil and for the love of G-D topical, yeah?
Ok about everything you said but I do not thing that I wasn't civil. And I respect the freedom of speech. Please, find other arguements to help the discussion.
The whole point is that some people don't like what they are hearing about 4e, so they are disinclined to buy it. You don't honestly expect me to buy every product that exists just because I might like it, do you? I don't need to buy Feng Shui to know its not the sort of game I want to play. I just need to read about it in the marketing material. Why do you think I need to be "fair" to 4e and spend $30 on a game I don't expect to like and don't particularly need (since Ars Magica and 3.5 work just fine for my needs)?
Timothy, I understand the anger, or fury, or whatever, with 4th edition and I have no problem with it. Even if 4th go badly I can always go back. But. What I have problem to reason out is that you may have an excellent (supposedly) product for your consuming needs but because of bad marketing you have problems purchasing it. Marketing helps for attracting new customers mostly. You can at least try and see whether you like it. If not, ok.
The game isn't mystically entitled to my money just because its got D&D on its cover. I don't see anyone telling me I have to buy Vampire or GURPS or Alternity before I can decide I don't need them. Why is 4e any different?
True and I'm not trying to persuade you into buying it. I'm trying to help myself understand why someone cares about the marketing of the product when all he can do is check it through some friend (when it is published) or convension thus having a more clear view whether he likes it.