You can't look at D&D, particularly the earliest editions, and claim that Tolkien wasn't a profound influence. Remember what the original name of Halflings were?
Not to mention goblins riding worgs and "Type VI Demons"/Balors...
|
You can't look at D&D, particularly the earliest editions, and claim that Tolkien wasn't a profound influence. Remember what the original name of Halflings were?Not to mention goblins riding worgs and "Type VI Demons"/Balors...
Yep. Even though he did not like Tolkien all that much Gygax knew what was popular. The game was created to reflect the popular trends in fantasy at the time.
4e has done the exact same thing.
Yep. Even though he did not like Tolkien all that much Gygax knew what was popular. The game was created to reflect the popular trends in fantasy at the time.4e has done the exact same thing.
You know, I think this is possibly the best crystallization of the debate I have seen CWM. It perfectly states the paradigm shift in the game, and why so many love it and so many hate it. Kudos.
Fantasy literature trends change over time. This is nothing new. Gygax also took his chances back in the day building a fantasy game off the historial miniature battle rules. To this day there are the folks who sniff at the 'fantasy kid's stuff' while debating troop placements at Gettysburg or Remagen.
Change will always be viewed with horror by those who like the way things are and hailed by those yearning for something new. I am just happy that everyone has an option now. I may shake my head bemusedly at the wall of anime books at my local store that has taken a chunk out of my science fiction section, but I am happy that some sort of literature is out there that is keeping young imaginations alive.
|
|
Yep. Even though he did not like Tolkien all that much Gygax knew what was popular. The game was created to reflect the popular trends in fantasy at the time.So.. no but yes?
4e has done the exact same thing.What popular trend does 4E track? I can't think of anything OTHER than an MMO that 4E's new rules follow.. and that can't possibly be it since you said that 4E doesn't track MMOs...
Of course 4e is influenced by MMOs - my point on that front is that 4e is not simply an MMO with pen and paper.
As for the popular trends that 4e tracks - the rise in popularity of manga and anime seem to be the biggest influence.
EDIT: ... and the rise in popularity of steam punk.
Fantasy literature trends change over time. This is nothing new. Gygax also took his chances back in the day building a fantasy game off the historial miniature battle rules. To this day there are the folks who sniff at the 'fantasy kid's stuff' while debating troop placements at Gettysburg or Remagen.One big difference, though. Gygax never said "Okay, this is the new ASL. We're done with WWII. So throw out your old manuals and get your force of Orcs ready."
I will totally agree and say that in my opinion WotC has handled the whole affair ham-handedly, to the point where I (as a collector and completist) has yet to pcik up a single 4e product. Not because I feel the rules are somehow 'inferior', I also have no interest in collecting GURPS at the moment, and have no rulebooks for it either in my collection.
Would this be different if they had kept the magazines in dead tree form coming to my door with articles like the 2e to 3e did? Possibly. One can never be sure, but I now spend my cash on Pathfinder. That is a PERSONAL descision. Others have made other descisions. I was merely stating that CWM crystalized the debate in an elegant form I appreciated.
Or in haiku:
My game was killed once
But it rose from the ashes
To stand by its brother
or perhaps:
Two games struggle hard
Who is the heir to the throne?
Perhaps they both are
|
|
"No but yes" AGAIN.. jeeze...
Well, if you would take the time to understand what I am actually saying then I would not need to correct you when you mischaracterize my actual position.
Well, going through the PHB, there aren't any steampunk references in it. I also don't really see the anime and manga influence really. I'm not being snarky, they're just not there.
If you are looking for a blatant copy of manga and anime in 4e then you will not see it. The influence of manga and anime on 4e are much like the influence of the MMOs. The influence is there in the style of play, the nature of powers (and some of their names), and the construction of some race and class archetypes. I am not talking about visual style - I am talking about the nature of the game.
So, please, specify what literary tropes 4E is tracking. Because, in all honesty, I really don't see them.
A great example is the artificer - it is very heavily influenced by alchemy from Full Metal Alchemist. I also see influences from Claymore, Record of the Lodoss War, Bleach, and Utopia's Avenger. Some folks see MMO influence when they look at powers - I see anime when I look at them.
What I see, personally, is a rules-set following the 'success' of other minis-based games out there, such as Descent, Warhammer, and combining that with mechanical staples of MMOs.
Well, considering that those games have been successful why shouldn't they influence 4e? But the implication that 4e is simply a miniatures game is not born out by the evidence to the contrary. The core rules have just as much miniatures play as 3e had plus some involuntary movement thrown in. In addition 4e has a ton of roleplaying fluff, advice, and content.
Strange...
4e is the first edition of D&D that actually "talks about roleplaying" (you kinda ignored the opening pages in the 4E PHB where it talks about how your character should be envisioned)
And where did I come out defending any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons? Heck, did I NOT say that 1st edition was ALSO a skirmish game? It was. Still enjoyed it when I played it.
Besides, citing the passage that effectively says "Don't do a backstory, just hack crap up and think of an excuse later as you go" isn't helping the cause. :)
What passage? There is no passage like that. Or at the very least you're greatly misinterpreting it.
What passage? There is no passage like that. Or at the very least you're greatly misinterpreting it.Strange...
4e is the first edition of D&D that actually "talks about roleplaying" (you kinda ignored the opening pages in the 4E PHB where it talks about how your character should be envisioned)
And where did I come out defending any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons? Heck, did I NOT say that 1st edition was ALSO a skirmish game? It was. Still enjoyed it when I played it.
Besides, citing the passage that effectively says "Don't do a backstory, just hack crap up and think of an excuse later as you go" isn't helping the cause. :)
The fact you have to proviso your response there is pretty damning ... you're basically conceeding there is a quote that basically says that, but it needs to be interpreted differently.
After reading the rules for 4e, I can recall reading in the DMG something about it suggesting you don't go into too much detail about the setting at the start, (don't draw a world map - was one thing that stuck in my mind), and to basically make it up as you go.
Certainly that's how it read to me, as I mentioned it to a friend as a baffling stance for the DMG to champion as desirable.
It can be done of course, to expand the world setting with the campaign. ie Start in a village, move up to the local area, on to the nearest big city, then start exploring and even influencing the surrounding nations and politics of the world at large.
I just rather got the impression the DMG wasn't even really suggesting detailing it up much at all, even further down the line, - it seemed to want vague, 'points of light', cookie cutter type settings to be the norm. Nations to be few and far between, and politics to be even rarer.
The DMG to me at least, reads as if it just wants worlds to be small towns (which include computer game like instant travel portals), surrounded by wilderness containing dungeons.
|
|
Certainly that's how it read to me, as I mentioned it to a friend as a baffling stance for the DMG to champion as desirable.
IIRC it mentions the "make it up as you go" method as one among many methods of world building. The DMG has all kinds of advice on many different styles of play. When I read through the DMG I do not see it as "championing" any particular style over another.
It can be done of course, to expand the world setting with the campaign. ie Start in a village, move up to the local area, on to the nearest big city, then start exploring and even influencing the surrounding nations and politics of the world at large.
I just rather got the impression the DMG wasn't even really suggesting detailing it up much at all, even further down the line, - it seemed to want vague, 'points of light', cookie cutter type settings to be the norm. Nations to be few and far between, and politics to be even rarer.
The DMG to me at least, reads as if it just wants worlds to be small towns (which include computer game like instant travel portals), surrounded by wilderness containing dungeons.
The world that is presented in the DMG is based off a list of assumptions, but there is a section that says maybe you should change these assumptions to better suit your taste. I don't see how you can't have a setting where there's politics as well as wilderness with dungeons. In fact I think the DMG touches on just about any kind of campaign you can think of (at least ones that assume your characters are gonna be fighting). And what's so wrong about the instant travel portals? People used to teleport all the time in previous editions, it's a fantasy trope I can live with in my D&D.
And what's so wrong about the instant travel portals? People used to teleport all the time in previous editions, it's a fantasy trope I can live with in my D&D.
I find they seem a little too Diablo Town Portal scrolly for me.
I do like the idea of putting a permanent teleport circle on a ship or in the back of a covered wagon or in a cave inside an iceberg or some other permanent but still mobile location. Think of the hilarity that could ensue!
CWM's views are like a spinning weathervane that eventually points E ...4E.
Its a two way street - lets just say I can make a guess what your views are as well.
And what's so wrong about the instant travel portals? People used to teleport all the time in previous editions, it's a fantasy trope I can live with in my D&D.I find they seem a little too Diablo Town Portal scrolly for me.
Yeah, that's what I first thought when I read Linked Portal. But it's not like scrolls of linked portal fly out of monsters when you kill them :P That and the portal is only open for 30 seconds at best, so it's not like "Oh crap, we're gonna get slaughtered, lets run back to town for potions!"
Yeah, that's what I first thought when I read Linked Portal. But it's not like scrolls of linked portal fly out of monsters when you kill them :P That and the portal is only open for 30 seconds at best, so it's not like "Oh crap, we're gonna get slaughtered, lets run back to town for potions!"
I can certainly see a battered and bruised party desperately blocking a doorway and trying not to make noise while one of their number frantically draws a circle on the ground and starts chanting and praying that his Arcane roll is high enough to get everyone out in time.
I don't agree that 4E is reselling the same stuff. I feel that 4E is a totally different game. I can't see how anybody can have it both ways. In trying to convert the Necromancer to 4E I'm finding it's totally different.
By the way, Dorthy's family were all farmers. She was a farmgirl.
The quotes from the new DMG sound like an actual writer slipped that in under the radar. The fans were going to demand it anyways. Actually just creating one town surrounded by dungeons sound like real Dungeons & Dragons to me. That's how I got started.
I can certainly see a battered and bruised party desperately blocking a doorway and trying not to make noise while one of their number frantically draws a circle on the ground and starts chanting and praying that his Arcane roll is high enough to get everyone out in time.
Yeah, that's what I first thought when I read Linked Portal. But it's not like scrolls of linked portal fly out of monsters when you kill them :P That and the portal is only open for 30 seconds at best, so it's not like "Oh crap, we're gonna get slaughtered, lets run back to town for potions!"
But see, that makes for really cool roleplaying, and costs a lot of money so going back would be a pain. And it's only open for 18 seconds so no time to buy potions and sell your loot. I could also see the players going to the wrong town in their frantic rush to GTFO, but that'd be a real d*ck thing for the DM to pull on the players.
Do they have potions of Mana?
Wait, how would that work in 4th edition?
Made some well said points
**applauds**
Well said, and welcome to the boards. Glad to have you around. (Humor) And for the record, I had the nice parents. They let me eat the paste in the living room without the crash helmet (/Humor)
|
As for the complaint that it's a miniatures styled game? Get over yourself. Name a D&Der who has never in his or her life used coins, toys, miniatures, dice, the occasional potato chip, or a gum wrapper to depict where a creature or object is in a hectic combat scenario. Go on. Take your time. I'll wait.
Ok. Me. Hey, you asked. Hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.
I don't agree with that appraisal of 4e Rache'.
Faceless big corporations don't greenlight pet projects (which is kinda what your hypothetical house rule system would be) on a whim.
It seems much (MUCH) more likely 4e was devised as a money making venture to me. Especially when you weigh in the GSL into the equation.
Look WoW has over ten million subscribers at the moment and that figure is going up. TEN MILLION. Is it so unlikely that wotc want to try to run off some of that herd?
There are many clues that point to money-making being the main (only?) engine driving 4e imo, for example;
The increased reliance on minis. (This is a licence to print money as far as rpgs are concerned.)
The price wotc will be charging for DDI.
The obvious visual references and rule additions aimed at WoW fans.
Heavier reliance on future supplements to fully round out the much less complete core rulebooks.
etc etc
Ok. Me. Hey, you asked. Hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.
As for the complaint that it's a miniatures styled game? Get over yourself. Name a D&Der who has never in his or her life used coins, toys, miniatures, dice, the occasional potato chip, or a gum wrapper to depict where a creature or object is in a hectic combat scenario. Go on. Take your time. I'll wait.
Me too.
....Wow. I mean... wow. I don't see why you lurk, that was an awesome post, though I guess it wouldn't have been as awesome if you weren't just uncorking a bottle just now :P
I think people tend to forget the D&D staff is comprised of people who have been playing this game for years. Of course they remember older editions, and why wouldn't they? It's the reason why they're working for WotC, why they spend so much time designing games and supplements. I mean they could probably have any other job in the industry, but no they applied to WotC to work on the game they love so much. And they made a great edition of the game, from a DM's perspective I'm actually excited to do this. In previous editions I would have been screwed. I remember how much they were touting on how 4e will be easier for DMs, but when I finally got a look at it I was surprised 'cause they actually delivered on that promise.
Now I'm just splurging, but yeah great post, and post more you're good at it.
(Sorry about the late post, I accidentally posted this in the wrong thread ^^;; )
|
|
*hugs Paul Watson!* Well! That's actually a surprise. *sagenods* Thank you for contradicting me, though. I should not have stated an absolute and I do apologize for that.
My point is it's one of the things that so many people do it got put into the game proper. They put it in during 3e and 3.5 to make things easier on DMs who needed rules on how minis move. In 4E they've further clarified these rules and added push, pull, and slide effects to make combat more fun and effective. The fighter no longer stands still trading blows with the enemy fighter. People get knocked back or pushed to the ground. I find that a lot more fun
My boyfriend has a level 1 dragonborn fighter that plans to use the Iron Vanguard Paragon path to be even more capable of pushing, sliding, and dealing damage to foes, thus keeping them far away from my lightly armored elven ranger who is much better at range.
In the end, love it or leave it. 4E is a game system. But don't accuse the writers of abandoning the players or making things 'less fantasy'.
-Rachel-
If I'm honest, a gap of about 12 years after university probably helped as miniatures weren't such a big thing in 2E. ;-)
And 4E is still fantasy, can't argue with that, the wizards were a bit of a clue, but it looks to me like a very particular type of fantasy that I'm less keen on. To be really honest, what really turned me off was the nuking of the Realms rather than the system itself. Still, Pathfinder is coming which suits me better, so enjoy 4E. I'm sure I'll play it eventually (and I might even like it), but not yet.
extended argument focusing mostly on issues of rules
An interesting argument, but one that misses a chunk of the point, I feel. Your argument focuses very strongly on changes to the rules, but not a whole lot on other elements changed in 4e. It's not just rule changes that have caused players to charge abandonment.
There are myriad other changes to the metasetting and underlying lore of the game. For some people, those are a significant part of what makes D&D D&D and not some other FRPG. What rankles some the most is that many or even most of those changes were not at all necessary to support the new combat and character advancement rules. And for some players, tradition in the game, despite modifications in the rules, is important because it is what links different editions together.
I do believe that WotC, whether intending to or not, has abandoned the players for whom such considerations are important.
If player Abandonment is based on the core campaign setting, which I've -rarely- if ever used, I find it a strange argument indeed. Because D&D is a system, not a setting to me.
That's not really what I'm talking about either. Crack open your Monster Manuals from 4e and 3e and 1e. Look up storm giant. Look up unicorn, drider, dryad, lamia... All in the core rules (in all cases except the drider, since 1e) and all changing away from the previous tradition. Why? I dunno. I'm trying to resist the urge (in the cases of the storm giant, unicorn, and dryad) to say that making things more monstrous makes for more convenient smack-down rather than peaceful or otherwise non-violent encounters.
My point is that these things changed from the tradition with no real need to change other than translating their old mechanics into the new. These may seem pretty petty issues but it's partly the tradition, even stuffed away in the nooks and crannies of the game, that makes this the same game even when hit dice shift around, defense are recalibrated, and attacks are re-written into new rule structures.
There have always been differences between D&D campaigns but the core retained a certain consistency, even originally derived from Gygax's personal campaign (as Greyhawk was also derived). Worlds could elect to include some of those elements from the core or not depending on their fit.
I find it not the same D&D if the iconically good unicorn now no longer cares about purity of a potential rider's heart. Or if a dryad is now a woody butt kicker rather than bewitcher. Or even if there's some strain of giant that is morally redeemable and worth seeking out when facing an invasion by his more brutal cousins...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
my god, this thread is still alive? Its like message board Kudzu. Can't we just consign this thing to the sunken city of R'Lyeh and not allow more posts until 'the stars are right'?
That was my thought when it just popped up again too. Maybe there should be an abandoning the abandoning the fans thread.
That's not really what I'm talking about either. Crack open your Monster Manuals from 4e and 3e and 1e. Look up storm giant. Look up unicorn, drider, dryad, lamia... All in the core rules (in all cases except the drider, since 1e) and all changing away from the previous tradition. Why? I dunno. I'm trying to resist the urge (in the cases of the storm giant, unicorn, and dryad) to say that making things more monstrous makes for more convenient smack-down rather than peaceful or otherwise non-violent encounters.My point is that these things changed from the tradition with no real need to change other than translating their old mechanics into the new. These may seem pretty petty issues but it's partly the tradition, even stuffed away in the nooks and crannies of the game, that makes this the same game even when hit dice shift around, defense are recalibrated, and attacks are re-written into new rule structures.
There have always been differences between D&D campaigns but the core retained a certain consistency, even originally derived from Gygax's personal campaign (as Greyhawk was also derived). Worlds could elect to include some of those elements from the core or not depending on their fit.
I find it not the same D&D if the iconically good unicorn now no longer cares about purity of a potential rider's heart. Or if a dryad is now a woody butt kicker rather than bewitcher. Or even if there's some strain of giant that is morally redeemable and worth seeking out when facing an invasion by his more brutal cousins...
I see your point to some extent but can't completely agree. BECMI to the Rules Cyclopedia was D&D as as much as 1E to 3.5. I'm not sure its really accurate to decide that one must follow the Greyhawk fundamentals to be true D&D. For most of D&D history their have in fact been two separate fundamental assumptions that essentially co-existed and then the varous other campaign settings would further confuse the issue.
That 4E choose not to strictly adhere to any one concept of how the campaign setting worked seems fine to me. I'm willing to go down a path that says that their is no one true D&D and all others are fakes. Sure 4E shakes up a lot of the core presumptions of the Great Wheel Cosmology and some iconic fantasy tropes. I'm no fan of myself some of these ideas myself. For example I need the Blood War for my homebrew and I need the planes to be set up in a slightly different manner. Angels are Good, never evil and yes, Dryads ought to be a big part of trees and seduce people.
That some of the core assumptions of the 4E MM don't line up with my needs is a fact but, considering how easy it is to add or modify the monsters, I don't really see this as much of an impediment. I'll change back what I don't like or will otherwise convert it to my needs. In some cases I'll even follow the change as I feel that some of them were pretty inspired and in these cases it will be my home brew that adapts and not my view of some 4E presumption.
Essentially I'll keep all the ideas I think are good and dump or convert all the ideas I think are bad.
I see your point to some extent but can't completely agree. BECMI to the Rules Cyclopedia was D&D as as much as 1E to 3.5. I'm not sure its really accurate to decide that one must follow the Greyhawk fundamentals to be true D&D. For most of D&D history their have in fact been two separate fundamental assumptions that essentially co-existed and then the varous other campaign settings would further confuse the issue.
I think you have to look at 4e's pedigree. It's not BECMI. It's a direct line back to 1e. At least, that's what they've been trying to evoke by putting it in the same edition line. I really can't see divergent lines as being nearly as relevant as the main line it sits in.