4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism


3.5/d20/OGL

901 to 950 of 1,233 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Rockheimr wrote:

...but I HATE GM's railroading pc's down routes they really don't want to go 'because that's the plot'.

Me too. I think I saw you in Mairkurion's thread, "I've been workin' on the railroad..." A good thread and serves to explore your point.

Like you, its the organic nature of collaboration, that I think gave rise to this entire generations mindset of the same in so many other facets of life. Gygax changed the world in this regard.

Sovereign Court

houstonderek wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:

C'mon Houston D, you get this stuff better than all of us. You know what OSG is talkin' about.

You understand the secret, so don't get caught up arguing against it. There isn't any fiat that a good GM admits. And there isn't any GM ex machina that should be obvious. A great GM hides these things, and keeps the mastrey of the game all his own.

Yeah, but if I don't throw out some contrariness once in a while, the thread slows down. I love this thread, I want to see it grow!

;)

10-4 good buddy.

Sovereign Court

Chinadoll wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:

Look - here is what the game publishers won't tell you.

...its the same famous quote by E.G.Gygax...

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

-Quote popularly attributed to Gary Gygax

"Behind the mirrors... behind the smoke.... sits the gamemaster. A perfect puppet master, and the greatest bard of modern times. He knows how to open the window to another plane, and let the dreams and horrors of the unconscious dance upon the game table. His role, done well, should take you elsewhere - beyond rulebooks, to a realm of shared imagination that appears all at once, immersive theater, and a functioning game system. The game can expand the mind and manifest meaning from the substances stored in our subconscious. An experience not unlike that of a church-like community forms when the players suspend disbelief in favor of the game master's world. And so it is the appearance of a system that makes the game magical, not the actual existence of it."
-Pax Veritas-

No rules = anarchy. YAY!

Now consider what you've said. More deeply, though you were just having fun... Look around at society for just a moment... please, indulge me just this once... See that it has rules, strictures, and dice. Now, consider that many times - it does not. There is much more meaning behind this game - levels of meaning and symolic relationships to "reality" that go far deeper than any publisher would be willing to print. See now, the relationship that is Gary's game :: to the rest of the world. It is a delve into the imagination, in ways that release the mind from the strictures, and rules of society itself. And in those moments when the mind is free in the fantasy realm, we explore how in-character, we can touch the matrix and alter the very framework of the realm we believe is "reality."

One needs only to look at volumous works of psychology to see how role-playing can open the subconscious or set the mind at work with new focus on changing a person's reality. But in addition to psychology... spirituality is at work, and in this sense I include all pagan spiritualties, animist, witchcraft, atheist, and Christian mysteries. In those moments of becomming another character, in the context of the powers granted by shared human thought of other players... we see before us, not this "reality" we speak of, but of the power of the mind, and the freedoms of expressions both spiritual and temporal. And like the very elements of our game, they are conjured in their purest, most alterable forms, because around us are all the triggers of our own "real" society.

This at its inexplicable heart - is the underpinning of Gygaxian Naturalism in my opinion. The world must be believable enough, to trigger the imagination/mind but fantastic enough to open it up to new ideas. And therein' Gary knew when the dice should stop, and story continue. Likewise, Gary insisted the dice provide that element of chance and game that brought players together for this imaginative and unpredictable adventure.

It is no wonder that those who condemned the game, or still do, are somehow suspicious or afraid of this power that it has.

And, to come back to reality. Sure, its just a game. And for those who recognize its arcane power, the anchoring in Gygaxian sensibility is essential. For studies show that memory and imagination function very similarly to visual sight of the "real." And since the brain can treat both with equality, there is indeed magical power in the maleability of our fantasy game, to show us just how powerful we are to alter our own realities.

This must have in many ways, shaken certain static belief systems when Gary introduced the game. Even as a casual observer of those incredible, but sometimes fleeting moments, or whole hours that pass by at the table so swiftly, outsiders can tell in a blink that more is going on that just another game.

Our game is very special indeed.
And again, I'm not looking to defend any of this. Take what you can and leave the rest. I would require a whole book, with many annotations to fully state this case.

Does all of this relate to our discussion though? We're taught from an early age that no rules=anarchy... but what if no rules=reality (...at times, just as in the game?) Ah, yes. It does relate indeed. Life is just like the dichotomy expressed in the equation, "Dice and rules matter - except when they don't." - Pax Veritas -

"Life's like this."
- Avril Lavigne-

Liberty's Edge

My girlfriend is happy that her throw away goofy line (she's in love with the Sex Pistols) spawned a post that touched me.

Pax, that was awesome, thanks :)

P.S. She is giving your post metal "devil horns" right now and saying "rock on"! ;)

She's only played for a year now (and only 3.5/Beta so far) but she is bugging me to run an adventure using the 1e books I have on the shelf. She's read this thread and wants to experience first hand what we're going on about :)


onesickgnome wrote:
Gary Gygax wrote:

Valerian wrote:

"My players just had such an opportunity and failed ... "Grab 4d6 everyone". It's rare a whole party is rash but it happens. Gary did you ever slay an entire party."

Yes, and each time it was because of poor play.
The worst was when my play-test group for the Unhallowed horror RPG were at the concluding session of a campaign that had lasted for many weeks. When the main antagonist, a witch, did not die immediately when thay shot her, they decided in their wisdom to shiit the sacrificial victim on the altar. The resulting innicent blood there enabled the demon to gate into the place and and do for the lot of them. I just said, "Time for you to go home," rather than make a gory account of the end. I was so disappointed in their play that I never invited any member of that group to be a part of one of my RPG campaigns thereafter.
All the other TPK incidents, six or so, occurred when groups of non-old-school players, or old-schoolers that had lost touch with their roots, adventured into my originsl dungeon, where most were slain in the first level by a band of kobolds, not known as the Old Guard Kobolds.
Cheers,
Gary

Found this on a site I lurk, It was part of a series of Q&A's.

I can totally agree here. poor players bring the whole game down. Ive killed off a players character for being stoopid too. Did to get rid of a jerk who was dragging the whole game down.
Eric

Well each to his own I guess. See that comment comes across as the worst kind of elitist douche-bag DMing to me, where the DM believes, if you aren't playing it my way, you are playing it wrong.

Grand Lodge

pres man wrote:
onesickgnome wrote:


I can totally agree here. poor players bring the whole game down. Ive killed off a players character for being stoopid too. Did to get rid of a jerk who was dragging the whole game down.
Eric
Well each to his own I guess. See that comment comes across as the worst kind of elitist douche-bag DMing to me, where the DM believes, if you aren't playing it my way, you are playing it wrong.

Obviously, one can take it that way, but I'm thinking (and I could be WAY off base here) that he meant stupid=disruptive...


Pax Veritas wrote:

C'mon Houston D, you get this stuff better than all of us. You know what OSG is talkin' about.

You understand the secret, so don't get caught up arguing against it. There isn't any fiat that a good GM admits. And there isn't any GM ex machina that should be obvious. A great GM hides these things, and keeps the mastrey of the game all his own.

I can't say I agree with this sentiment. At least not in terms of Gygaxian Naturalism. In my view the DM does not need to hide DM Fiat or Dues ex Machina because these concepts don't enter into play in the first place.

Having mastery over the world or being the puppet master behind the screen encompass' many things but its never about saving a favoured players character or even the whole party from the cruel hand of fate.

I've gone and pulled my 1E DMG out of storage but have not got down to rereading it yet but I'm seriously skeptical that there is any chapter and verse in that text that sets a precedent for this sort of DM behavior.

Now I'm not saying that this is specifically the wrong way to play D&D, in fact you can point to chapter and verse that specifically instructs the DM to ignore the dice because the rolls are brutal and characters are going to get their asses handed to them if the results are actually followed but I recall being rather shocked when I read that in 2nd editions DMs game running guide, Catacombs.

The whole concept of 'ignore the dice' is very 2nd edition. Its a product of 'Hickman' D&D in my opinion. Now there is nothing inherently wrong with the shifts in the game Hickman brought to it, in fact I love a lot of his material and I really enjoyed much of 2nd edition...but not this...this takes things to far. The life an adventurer is dangerous and it often ends in death. Good play puts an edge in your corner and bad play stacks the deck against you but neither are absolutes. Good adventurers die and bad ones sometimes get lucky and its not the job of the DM to step in and decide for the group as a whole or for individuals in the group whether they will be unlucky or not.

Sure the DM plays fair but he plays fair in the sense that the random monster table does not include Ancient Red Dragon attacks if the players are only 3rd level. You don't throw impossible to overcome challenges at the players unless they go out of their way to find them and that usually comes with some subtle warnings that they are making a big mistake.


onesickgnome wrote:

Tomb of Horrors written by Gygax, was originaly designed as one shot Tournement play at Origins I. Gygax called it a "Thinking person's module" It is survuvable. I own and orginal copy of the Module.

It is a tournament module but that is not the only thing it is. I think its the boxed set, though I'm not certain, were Gygax goes into a story about running his players through it. The thing was brutal it ate even good players for breakfast. That does not mean its not do able, it means that if you can pull it off, if your one of the special select few that have actually managed to go into it and get through it on your own wits you have something to be proud of. You've accomplished an amazing feat. I'm pretty sure Gygax mentions the character of the first of his group that accomplished the task and there is a note of pride in the writing. Back in the day surviving that kind of an adventure came with bragging rights, you'd go to conventions and people would relate stories of their exploits in that meat grinder. A select few had even beaten it - though, of course you never new if they had really beaten it honestly or if they had either had been on the receiving end of collusion with the DM or, more often, they were just lying about achieving such an exploit.

Nonetheless the fact that people would lie about such a thing was notable, it was a real honour and testament to your skill as a player if you had actually managed it.

I'll throw out another example. Ever read Isle of the Ape? Another fantastic Gygaxian test of skill and mettle. The environment itself attacks your scrolls and your food supply - if your there long starving to death or biting it from tropical disease is a very real way your high level character might finally meet his end. This is a place were a party that has slain dragons might be reduced to eating their belts and, ultimately succumb, to some nasty tropical disease or simply hunger itself.

The set up for that adventure is pretty brilliant as it relates to the first group that ventured forth onto the island. It tells us a story about a group of adventurers who, while exploring Castle Greyhawk, ventured forth through a portal onto the island and there faced such challenges that they escaped only by using powerful magic. The price, however, was extremely high for they returned to the safety of their home base in Greyhawk city naked, stripped of all their treasure, all their magic, their spell books...everything.

There is a reason why, in 1st edition, you made traveling spell books and kept your master copies in a safe place.

I don't believe that Gygax designed these adventures and then went about constantly pulling his players nuts out of the fire, his players adapted or they died. Modern conventions of the game tell us that we have to coddle our players lest they become scared and turtle. There is truth to that theory...but its not how I was brought up gaming back in the day.

A better example of that might be found in Maure Castle...especially the room that eats your f!~~ing magic items...used to be there were no refunds for that kind of thing...


Ya know what ive enjoyed about this line of discussion so far?

We're debating DMing styles about a game Gygax hasnt touched since 1e.

Ive got three other DM in my area and Ive had these same discussions with them.

Each DM has his own style, and has attracted players that enjoy that style.

D&D is a social game, and to be truthful I only hang with folks I can get along with.

Of the 3 other DMs very few of our players play outside of their own groups. I had a guy from another group walk out on one of my games in the 1st 20 minutes of the session. He had an issue with the way we were rolling Initiative. FUNNY!

All four of us tend to get along, one of which is an uncle of mine, but we all have different styles....

Kewl aint it?

Eric

Sovereign Court

onesickgnome wrote:

Ya know what ive enjoyed about this line of discussion so far?

We're debating DMing styles about a game Gygax hasnt touched since 1e.

Ive got three other DM in my area and Ive had these same discussions with them.

Each DM has his own style, and has attracted players that enjoy that style.

D&D is a social game, and to be truthful I only hang with folks I can get along with.

Of the 3 other DMs very few of our players play outside of their own groups. I had a guy from another group walk out on one of my games in the 1st 20 minutes of the session. He had an issue with the way we were rolling Initiative. FUNNY!

All four of us tend to get along, one of which is an uncle of mine, but we all have different styles....

Kewl aint it?

Eric

Yes. I do like this discussion. It feels home to me.

Aside.... I believe Gary was still head of TSR in the 1990s, so he did have a hand in the game's direction through 2e. But I realize we're talking Zeb Cook at that point et.al.

And there's probably enough good stuff that Chenault was able to get from Gary's mind into print through Troll Lord Games. In fact, one of the Living Fantasy books by Gygax is on sale here at PAIZO today.

A quick leaf through Living Fantasy, or Insidae, and we see how Gary laid out the detail with regard to typical clerical monasticism and the hours of their prayers, and daily routine.

As you've mentioned, with little reliance upon dice, we're on the whole, talking about creating a realistic fantasy world, and engaging in the type of worldbuilding that creates an atmosphere where it is easy to suspend one's disbelief.

I guess, 4e feels like a buzz-kill when it comes to believability.

Oh sure, this will likely prompt debate, the likes of which you reiterate.... that every edition since 1st edition seems to have stepped away from that original genius that was first edition.

You know, it was so amazing to read the stats about the PAIZO Golem yesterday... I sensed that the "heart" that it's preserving is a reference to Gary's game: Vancian magic, and the core influences from Appendix N. Like Erik often says, I find those elements to be a feature, not a flaw, and believe that there is a tradition and a history that this special game shares, that when discussed and shared (as you do with your other GM friends) becomes a precious legacy we must never lose completely. We need to hold on to the heart of the game, know where we've come from, even while it has made sense to change some things. Just as Gary straddled the story and the rules, so do I find v.3.5/Pathfinder Role-playing Game is the right modern combination for my tastes, whereas that new game being sold under the d&d IP seems more like a genetic mutant, than a descendant or an evolutionary "edition."

.... but its late. Thanks for all the good posts today!
P.s. I agree that everyone's style is different. You won't get any debate from me there. However, many professionals will concur that "style" of anything truly well-done is less than 5% of it. I have no issues with folks GMing differently - as I am neither a thread policeman nor a GM watchman. Nobody will knock on someone's door and write a ticket. But as a community, its good, wouldn't you agree, to hold these discussions both in person and online? And isn't it nice to have some common design principles worth holding on to, and execution/facilitation/gamemastery techniques that stem back to the game's creators... the tried and true, the magnificent and mundane. In many ways, to me, the "mindset" of the gamemaster, if screwed on right, leads to making great decisions on a wide host of topics and questions that come up in-game. That mindset (and if you've ever played with really great GMs you know what I mean)... that mindset pays dividends and makes for awesome gaming.

I guess my deepest hope is that there are others still ardently developing their skill as gamemasters, rather than aquiescing to some notion purported by 4e that they're generally not needed, or reduced to screenmonkeys. Maybe that's untrue, but I've heard that new game system pretty much writes-out, or greatly reduces the role of the GM.


Pax Veritas wrote:


Aside.... I believe Gary was still head of TSR in the 1990s, so he did have a hand in the game's direction through 2e. But I realize we're talking Zeb Cook at that point et.al.

He left sometime in '85, 2nd edition began serous internal production sometime in '87.


onesickgnome wrote:

Ya know what ive enjoyed about this line of discussion so far?

We're debating DMing styles about a game Gygax hasnt touched since 1e.

Ive got three other DM in my area and Ive had these same discussions with them.

Each DM has his own style, and has attracted players that enjoy that style.

D&D is a social game, and to be truthful I only hang with folks I can get along with.

Of the 3 other DMs very few of our players play outside of their own groups. I had a guy from another group walk out on one of my games in the 1st 20 minutes of the session. He had an issue with the way we were rolling Initiative. FUNNY!

All four of us tend to get along, one of which is an uncle of mine, but we all have different styles....

Kewl aint it?

Eric

Funny it's like that where I live too, a few scattered very long running groups aware of each other, and each kinda seperated by different systems, house rules and traditions, but friendly toward each other.

I have no problem with this, and it's notable to me at least that none of the groups like or play 4e. Two being 3.5 I believe, my own being RQ/Basic with a few tweaks and ported D&D spells and magic items etc, and the other being fanaticcal about Savage Worlds.

All groups favour roleplay over tabletop skirmish I'm happy to say. I was chatting with one of the GM's the other day and he would love this thread, he was preaching the church of 1e over all later editions to me with a feverish glint in his eye. ;-)

Sovereign Court

Rockheimr wrote:
...he was preaching the church of 1e over all later editions to me with a feverish glint in his eye. ;-)

*conjures a thick Tennesse accent*

Put 'cha hands on the 1e DMG, my friends!

This hee yuhs, a rev - eye - vuhl !!!

>Please do send him on over! We welcome feeverish glints and gleams.

P.s. Same here. Actual game groups are probably fairly insular because the same folks continue gaming for years together. (Maybe we need a community organizer like Barack?!) My Monday group has played since March of '06. Kinda funny, but I remember telling some others that I would call them if one of the regulars dropped out- LOL! And I've watched those others long since graduate college and still not get a chair at our game table. But hey, who am I to argue with miraculous consistency and dedication!?

Liberty's Edge

Pax Veritas wrote:
Maybe we need a community organizer like Barack?!

Please don't.

Thanks.


Pax Veritas wrote:

I guess my deepest hope is that there are others still ardently developing their skill as gamemasters, rather than aquiescing to some notion purported by 4e that they're generally not needed, or reduced to screenmonkeys. Maybe that's untrue, but I've heard that new game system pretty much writes-out, or greatly reduces the role of the GM.

Actually that is untrue. One of 4E's goals is to make more DM's. A lot of the DM's work has been lessened in order to make it less intimidating. I know when I first started playing D&D (almost 30 years ago) there were more than a few missed opportunities to play because we didn't have a DM and we didn't think we could do it ourselves. The section in 4E about playing a random dungeon with no DM would have been perfect in that situation. It wouldn't have been the most fulfilling game of D&D, but it would have shown us a lot earlier that anybody can be the DM, controlling the monster is only part of it. And considering all the advice on how to run a game in the 4E DMG, rather than just a pile of charts, it seems like they're trying to encourage, rather than diminish DM's. The mechanics are simpler, but the game still relies on having a DM presenting the world for the players to interact with.


Pax Veritas wrote:
Chinadoll wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:

Look - here is what the game publishers won't tell you.

...its the same famous quote by E.G.Gygax...

"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

-Quote popularly attributed to Gary Gygax

"Behind the mirrors... behind the smoke.... sits the gamemaster. A perfect puppet master, and the greatest bard of modern times. He knows how to open the window to another plane, and let the dreams and horrors of the unconscious dance upon the game table. His role, done well, should take you elsewhere - beyond rulebooks, to a realm of shared imagination that appears all at once, immersive theater, and a functioning game system. The game can expand the mind and manifest meaning from the substances stored in our subconscious. An experience not unlike that of a church-like community forms when the players suspend disbelief in favor of the game master's world. And so it is the appearance of a system that makes the game magical, not the actual existence of it."
-Pax Veritas-

No rules = anarchy. YAY!

Now consider what you've said. More deeply, though you were just having fun... Look around at society for just a moment... please, indulge me just this once... See that it has rules, strictures, and dice. Now, consider that many times - it does not. There is much more meaning behind this game - levels of meaning and symolic relationships to "reality" that go far deeper than any publisher would be willing to print. See now, the relationship that is Gary's game :: to the rest of the world. It is a delve into the imagination, in ways that release the mind from the strictures, and rules of society itself. And in those moments when the mind is free in the fantasy realm, we explore how in-character, we can touch the matrix and alter the very framework of the realm we believe is "reality."

One needs only to look at volumous works of psychology to see how role-playing can open the...

This is all genius, just genius.


ghettowedge wrote:
Pax Veritas wrote:

I guess my deepest hope is that there are others still ardently developing their skill as gamemasters, rather than aquiescing to some notion purported by 4e that they're generally not needed, or reduced to screenmonkeys. Maybe that's untrue, but I've heard that new game system pretty much writes-out, or greatly reduces the role of the GM.

Actually that is untrue. One of 4E's goals is to make more DM's. A lot of the DM's work has been lessened in order to make it less intimidating. I know when I first started playing D&D (almost 30 years ago) there were more than a few missed opportunities to play because we didn't have a DM and we didn't think we could do it ourselves. The section in 4E about playing a random dungeon with no DM would have been perfect in that situation. It wouldn't have been the most fulfilling game of D&D, but it would have shown us a lot earlier that anybody can be the DM, controlling the monster is only part of it. And considering all the advice on how to run a game in the 4E DMG, rather than just a pile of charts, it seems like they're trying to encourage, rather than diminish DM's. The mechanics are simpler, but the game still relies on having a DM presenting the world for the players to interact with.

Keeping it simple. Its still the same job as its been in every edition. Prep work is more more complex then 1st edition but not as complex as 3.5. One can take any AP and convert it to 4E just as one can convert it to 1st. You'll face roughly the same hurdles in both conversions. They'll run fairly similarly.


Pax Veritas wrote:
You know, it was so amazing to read the stats about the PAIZO Golem yesterday... I sensed that the "heart" that it's preserving is a reference to Gary's game: Vancian magic, and the core influences from Appendix N. Like Erik often says, I find those elements to be a feature, not a flaw, and believe that there is a tradition and a history that this special game shares, that when discussed and shared (as you do with your other GM friends) becomes a precious legacy we must never lose completely. We need to hold on to the heart of the game, know where we've come from, even while it has made sense to change some things. Just as Gary straddled the story and the rules, so do I find v.3.5/Pathfinder Role-playing Game is the right modern combination for my tastes, whereas that new game being sold under the d&d IP seems more like a genetic mutant, than a descendant or an evolutionary "edition."

Pax, let me start off by saying that I'm trying to add another perspective to the points you've just made rather than dispute them. I apologise if any of the following seems overly argumentative, as that is not my intent.

Shared history and tradition are part of what makes us part of a community, but for any community to survive in the long term then it needs to have new & younger members become part of it. As much as you and I may understand the roots of the original game and it's influences, I suspect most of the works listed in the original Appendix N would mean little to today's young folk (hmm... just writing that makes me feel old). For the game to keep attracting new players as the years roll on, the "literary foundations" the game rests upon must somehow be relevant to both the existing community and to potential new members. In addition, the "creative spark" that fires imaginations and, in turn, fuels games can now also be found outside of the written word, so other media has to also be taken into consideration.

While we're talking about other media, a lot of people have bagged 4E for "trying to attract people who play WoW", but (IMO) if WotC wants to play the part of an industry leader, then it does need to take a leaf out of Blizzard's playbook and work on attracting new people to the hobby. Part of what has made WoW so successful is that Blizzard made WoW more accessible than other MMOs that were in existence at the time and, as a consequence, increased the size the overall MMO market (and has so far maintained the increased player base). I suspect that improving the accessibility of D&D was one of the goals behind 4E's design, and to a large degree it suceeds in that aim, but I'm not in a position to judge how this has translated into sales numbers and market share.

Now that's not to say that tradition and shared history should be completely overturned in an attempt to bring new blood into the hobby under the twin banners of "relevance" and "accessibility", but sometimes it's worth re-examining why something is being done rather than just saying "it has always been this way". Of course, we as individuals will often hold differing opinions on how various components "define" the game, but for me one of the biggest defining factors has always been the DM's style. This is why I can't buy into the "it isn't D&D any longer" argument, I cut my DMing teeth with 1E and I'm currently DMing 4E the same way I did back then (but with the benefit of extra maturity and experience). You have made a number of great posts about the role of the DM in the game, and while these are usually from a 1E/Gygaxian perspective, I can often see my own DMing style reflected in them even though I am using a different edition.

In some ways, I believe the "heart of the game" beats within us all, and while we might have different preferences for which set of rules we roll our dice to, we still have a lot of shared history and tradition even if some of us disagree on some of the things that have changed. The challenge for us is to pass this legacy on to future generations of gamers while recognizing that they won't necessarily be familiar with some of the things that have long underpinned our games.

Sovereign Court

Miphon wrote:
...a great many respectful and well worded things.

Miphon, I respectfully agree to disagree. I've taught in some high schools over the years, and I've read some books on generational history... (this in no way makes me any kind of expert), and in my humble opinion, great literary foundations simply ARE the great literary foundations of the game. Period.

And, if the newest generation, or a future generation somehow deems this "too much work" to be worth doing, or if they require (or need) a dummy-down version of fantasy role-play, then they will grow to forge a dummy-down verion of society as its leaders.

There was never anything "easy" or "mainstream" about being the kind of odd-bird who played Advanced Dungeons & Dragons back then, and it is no different now. A corporation (the wotci via Hasbro) has taken over what was was once "a product of your imagination" and has attempted to make it so "accessible" as to craft a product of "computer-colored Todd McFarlane hackwork that you see in the current version of the game and elsewhere."

It is also not my goal to make this post sound argumentative, however, we hold a fundamental disagreement about what should be, versus should NOT be, compromised for a new generation. Sure its a fact of life that generations pass, and new members must carry on torches of any institution, however, imo, it is the failure of our generation to have taught, instructed, passed-on, this wondrous game to the newest generation, that has caused such a reaction by the most vocal 20% as to "highjack" the game it self. I see no need to buy-in to a very loud 20%, including those in marketing who tend to make deci$ions based on profits, moreso than tradition, hisotory, or integrity.

Let me conclude by saying I'm trying to also add another perspective to the points you've just made rather than dispute them. And I apologise if any of the previous seems overly argumentative, as that is not my intent. The washing out of the Forgotten Realms, and the thinning out of alignments, and the diluting of what was once a challenging and mind-expanding product of the imagination is now little more than just a product, with some cards to use as replacements for imagination. It is this devolution that despite its easy charms, feels like a loss, a compromise, and a mistake. I don't generally buy the fear-mongering company line, that 4e must somehow exist to safe the gaming industry to reach the next generation.

The irony, in my opinion, is washing out the features of Gary and Dave's game, and telling the public they were "flaws" will ultimately be the hand that does the most damage.


One issue about continuing to point at older literature as "foundations" is some of those older literature contain questionable content, such as racial issues. This can be a turn off to a more racially sensitive age group, not to mention members of minority groups.


Pax, it's not our place to tell future generations how they should play the game, and they're not obligated to play our way. Should they choose to disregard the literary works that inspired Gygax and Arneson or Gygaxian Naturalism, that's their prerogative. And it’s definitely not “dumbing-down” the game to fix archaic math in the underlying system. “Work smarter – not harder”, as they say.

Sovereign Court

pres man wrote:
One issue about continuing to point at older literature as "foundations" is some of those older literature contain questionable content, such as racial issues. This can be a turn off to a more racially sensitive age group, not to mention members of minority groups.

Thank you for your comment. I ask your open-mindedness.

We do not develop our society's multiculturalism and pluralism by pretending the 1960s didn't happen. And it is not "questionable" to teach about the slave trade in history classes despite the painfully sensitive topic, nor should we reject the works of history between Ancient Egypt (slave trade) up and through the 1960s when the right to vote for blacks was finally received.

And further, I think you'd be s t r e t c h i n g to say that the foundations of fantasy roleplaying games is so racist that it is the kind of questionable content to warrant abandonment wholesale.

The clasics remain the classics, though we were an imperfect union then, as now. To Kill A Mockingbird is a foundational piece of American literature... period. And it is undenyable that the works of Jack Vance (just for example, not for tangental discussions about Vancian magic) inspired Gary G who in turn influenced the entire industry... period.

Racial sensitivity begins with knowledge and illumination, and will die the minute we forget the past.

Foundations are not compromised by young sensitivites. We should be mindful, gentle, instructive. But never, never, abandon our heritage or history.

"Don't know ya past, jah don't know yah future!"
-Ziggy Marley-

In sum, I agree to disagree with you pres man. And further, will not evolve any discussion questionable content, nor racial issues in this thread.

Sovereign Court

Sebastrd wrote:
Pax, it's not our place to tell future generations how they should play the game, and they're not obligated to play our way. Should they choose to disregard the literary works that inspired Gygax and Arneson or Gygaxian Naturalism, that's their prerogative. And it’s definitely not “dumbing-down” the game to fix archaic math in the underlying system. “Work smarter – not harder”, as they say.

Agreed. great point. This is an important one that should not be lost. How future generation choose to play cannot be mandated. We are in agreement.

Further, a fixing of math for convenience sake is a measure I recall happening with 2e and then 3e with the movement to the holistic d20 system. Again, we agree that a level of alteration from the past does not mean it an act of dumbing-down the game. Again, we agree.

Yet, it is the sole choice of every generation, namely this one - right here, right now, to choose to reject the past or carry its knowledge and wisdom forward with care as any custodian of historical lore should. We are at a tipping point, an important historic moment when we must recall the precepts of the game, for the amount of alterations has shifted so far away, that we risk losing this arcane lore for future generations who may chose to continue its legacy.

And it is also not the place of the young to play "revisionists" upon history i.e the holocost, the inquisition, the Protugese Slave Trade, the abuses of natives by Christopher Columbus, or any other historically important, though socially sensitive legacy. Likewise, we should not attribute the invention and purpose of a game about imagination to something as mundane as who currently owns the IP. The game invented and developed by Gygax is greater than the sum total of 4e, and arguably so very much is becomming lost in the shuffle while a corporation attempts to make a highly artistic endeavor of the imagination into the cultural mainstream. And it is an act of revisionism to say that the newest virtues have replaced older features, for they are not necessarily a betterment of flaws. The conflict and clash we see is that features have been revisionally marketed to the mainstream as "flaws" in a persuasive fasion. This, imho, a violation of the integrity of truth, as history should be conveyed not rewritten - as the designers have demonstrated with the Forgotten Realms.

As for a game.... well sure. There are no AD&D police that will come to someone's door. And no one, including you Sebastard, should feel alienated from the truth of history, even when the owners of the IP of your game of choice manipulate you to think otherwise.

But there is a point of fact involved... either someone is educated and knowledgeable of the past, or, a group, culture, society forgets its past. And the first step to forgetting is allowing the revisionists alter the truths of the past, something we should all feel strongly against.

Silver Crusade

I would suggest that there is a fine line between forgetting the foundations of the game and adding new material to those foundations. Which of those two describes 4e is far from settled fact. I tend to believe that it is the latter, based on my own experience. I am of the opinion that the latest edition combines the classic sources and traditions of the game with new ideas drawn from books, movies, video games, and any number of other sources from over the last 30 years. I don't think that's a bad thing, per se.

I would hope that newcomers to the game are getting an appreciation of the full history of the game (recent, and not so recent), although I admit that that is a hope, and that sort of thing will only truly survive through word of mouth.


Celestial Healer wrote:
I would suggest that there is a fine line between forgetting the foundations of the game and adding new material to those foundations. Which of those two describes 4e is far from settled fact. I tend to believe that it is the latter, based on my own experience. I am of the opinion that the latest edition combines the classic sources and traditions of the game with new ideas drawn from books, movies, video games, and any number of other sources from over the last 30 years. I don't think that's a bad thing, per se.

Indeed, it's not necessarily a bad thing. But the difference between a good result and a bad result can be a fairly fine line, and a line that varies from reviewer to reviewer. 4e is mostly over that line for me, but for different reasons than it would appear for someone like Pax Veritas.

Celestial Healer wrote:
I would hope that newcomers to the game are getting an appreciation of the full history of the game (recent, and not so recent), although I admit that that is a hope, and that sort of thing will only truly survive through word of mouth.

Word of mouth is probably the least reliable source of the game's full history...


It seems to me that if Vance and all the other Appendix N references were so damn foundational, they wouldn't need to be defended. No one here is trying to kick tolkien out of gaming, and for some reason conan in its various forms still inform lots of peoples gaming.

So why isn't Vance et al, shining in the light of history, rather than being bawed about as being so 'formative' to dnd. That's right because they weren't that great or foundational to being with.


Logos wrote:

It seems to me that if Vance and all the other Appendix N references were so damn foundational, they wouldn't need to be defended. No one here is trying to kick tolkien out of gaming, and for some reason conan in its various forms still inform lots of peoples gaming.

So why isn't Vance et al, shining in the light of history, rather than being bawed about as being so 'formative' to dnd. That's right because they weren't that great or foundational to being with.

Runs away from flames.


Bill Dunn wrote:


Word of mouth is probably the least reliable source of the game's full history...

The problem becomes deciding what other source is a viable vehicle to determine its history. The record is already pretty spotty. In 100 years if a historian decides to look back at the source of their virtual fantasy games and starts of their academic piece with the section called something like Fantasy Gaming Prior to Blizzard they are going to have lots of archival information but distilling that into some kind of accurate portrayal of the actual history will likely be incredibly difficult. We would presumably end up with a story thats close enough to the true narrative to serve its purpose in telling the people of that time about what we were doing and how we got to were we are but it'd be as much story as fact.

In the end thats the nature of history, word of mouth may be pretty unreliable but some version of word of mouth, maybe many words of mouth, eventually becomes the accepted reality.


Logos wrote:
So why isn't Vance et al, shining in the light of history, rather than being bawed about as being so 'formative' to dnd. That's right because they weren't that great or foundational to be[g]in with.

I've played 1e, and read almost all of the works in Appendix N, and can't see how some of them could be considered other than foundational to the game. Now, a person can walk up and learn 3.5 and 4e and never read any of them, and miss out on that history, sure. Much like you can watch "Kill Bill" without understanding that every character, costume, scene, nuance, and actor is taken from some other source, and without having any knowledge of the source material. Sure, you might think it's a fun action movie, but it's intended as more than that: it's a homage to the source material, and in missing that you sort of miss most of the movie as well. In missing out on the source material for D&D, and in missing out on ever playing the earlier editions, you sort of miss out on a big part of what this thread is all about. That doesn't mean you can't play and have fun, but it does mean your perspective is distinctly limited.

RPG Superstar 2012

Kirth Gersen wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:
So why isn't Vance et al, shining in the light of history, rather than being bawed about as being so 'formative' to dnd. That's right because they weren't that great or foundational to be[g]in with.
I've played 1e, and read almost all of the works in Appendix N, and can't see how some of them could be considered other than foundational to the game. Now, a person can walk up and learn 3.5 and 4e and never read any of them, and miss out on that history, sure. Much like you can watch "Kill Bill" without understanding that every character, costume, scene, nuance, and actor is taken from some other source, and without having any knowledge of the source material. Sure, you might think it's a fun action movie, but it's intended as more than that: it's a homage to the source material, and in missing that you sort of miss most of the movie as well. In missing out on the source material for D&D, and in missing out on ever playing the earlier editions, you sort of miss out on a big part of what this thread is all about. That doesn't mean you can't play and have fun, but it does mean your perspective is distinctly limited.

The original quote belongs to Logos, not ghettowedge. Just making sure the responses go to the right person.

Also OT: "Kill Bill", IMO, came pretty close to outright ripping off its source material. I enjoyed the movie, but I also felt like I'd watched it before.

Back on topic: I think Vance is on the wane, but I also think that someone in the future will pick up the torch, much like Erik Mona and Planet Stories have helped a lot of us rediscover past masters.


taig wrote:

1. The original quote belongs to Logos, not ghettowedge. Just making sure the responses go to the right person.

2. Also OT: "Kill Bill", IMO, came pretty close to outright ripping off its source material. I enjoyed the movie, but I also felt like I'd watched it before.

1. Corrected! Thanks.

2. I have to agree somewhat, although I'm still having fun identifying each and every source: I'm into the dozens and counting. ("Death Proof" was even more so: if you're not an insane "Vanishing Point" and "Two Lane Blacktop" fan, there's no point in even wathching it... luckily, I am!).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Logos wrote:
So why isn't Vance et al, shining in the light of history, rather than being bawed about as being so 'formative' to dnd. That's right because they weren't that great or foundational to be[g]in with.
I've played 1e, and read almost all of the works in Appendix N, and can't see how some of them could be considered other than foundational to the game. Now, a person can walk up and learn 3.5 and 4e and never read any of them, and miss out on that history, sure. Much like you can watch "Kill Bill" without understanding that every character, costume, scene, nuance, and actor is taken from some other source, and without having any knowledge of the source material. Sure, you might think it's a fun action movie, but it's intended as more than that: it's a homage to the source material, and in missing that you sort of miss most of the movie as well. In missing out on the source material for D&D, and in missing out on ever playing the earlier editions, you sort of miss out on a big part of what this thread is all about. That doesn't mean you can't play and have fun, but it does mean your perspective is distinctly limited.

That was full of awesome and win!

Eric


Hey Wizards, Balrogs, Rangers, Hobbits, all that good stuff.

I'm not saying that Gygax didn't love himself some vance and other books, and that whole memorization thing is pretty much lifted whole cloth from the books (as is the idea of law vs chaos and various other bits ).

But Gandolf is to wizards as foundations are to houses, in a way that I really dont think any of Vances stuff is. Gygax's preferences while they certainly are there, I dont think makes it Dnd (as lots of people do quite well at the dnd thing without any knowledge of vance, in various editions)

When you say something is foundational it should be necessary to the game, if you can remove something and still have the object in question, something is not foundational to the object in question. It just seems like there are way too many games with absolutely NO ZIPPO NULL ZERO NONE experiance or background in the kind of fantasy that Gygax was prone to recommend/write to call it foundational in any sense.

You want to call it foundational to maybe, a gygaxian style game, or something along that line. You got an argument. I don't think its even really necessary to get that old school/tomb of horrors feel but hey we can talk. To say its necessary to the game itself however seems to ignore lots and lots of to the contrary. (and hey if you want to argue that foundational is not the same as necessary, go ahead, you may have a point, but I don't think they can be too far apart, or we are obviously not talking about the same foundational).


4e has departed the most from the foundation of the game.

Do we agree?

And if we can accept that what does that mean for these new gamers come 20 more years?

If we cant lift up and accept the foundation of the game as an important part to its future development we lose something special about D&D.

Our game isnt like, Palladium, Steve Jackson or Iron Crown, our game started the RPG movement. Our game should be held to a higher standard, something not mock in any of its forms.

I dislike 4e alot, but Ive come to some conclusions of late. I have every right to dislike it, and saying that because i dislike it some how hurts the industry is just silly. I dislike 2e as much as I dislike 4e! I played it, I loved Planescape, I loved the Realms, and maybe 4e will produce a campaign world I can get behind so far that hasnt happened (Im hoping for a revisit to Athas!).

Attacking the foundation of our game is just silly, its like despising the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. They are the foundation of our society.

Gygax wrote the rules for RPing, plan and simple. Whether you call the DM a Gamemaster, Controller or Story Teller, the concept of a Guide to an RPG was developed by Gygax.

Ive had a hard time finding what type of Fantasy 4e is based on. Meaning where is its literary roots? When I read Jordan, Goodkind and Martin I dont see 4e. I see 1e, 2e, 3e. Can 4e be used to represent these literary worlds? Sure I imagine it can. I dont think WotC have any intrest in that kind of fantasy though.

I know you 4e Fans hate it but when I look at 4e I see a video game mentallity. Is that bad? No! I love RIFTS its munchinism to the extreme, Its MMO and instant gratification, powergaming Goodness! But when I want to game in my classic fantasy worlds I dont use Rifts, nor do I think 4e can fullfill that need.

I am going over 4e, building a Warhammer 40k campaign. Im really excited about that. And if that gets me and my players into 4e well GREAT! Im hoping my 40k campaign is gonna be a sucsess. And like ive said I really want a 4e Darksun release!

So after a year of hating, 4e Im willing to bury the hatchet. I still think im allowed to be critical of the game, and even state my opinion. 4e has left Gygax and the Old School authors behind, For good or bad. Its up to this next generation of players to determine its success, being in my late 30s im getting set in my ways, and as my kids grow older money starts getting diverted to their wants and needs. I may not be able to support 4e, or even 5e and on.

Eric


Pax Veritas wrote:
And no one, including you Sebastard, should feel alienated from the truth of history, even when the owners of the IP of your game of choice manipulate you to think otherwise.

I'd really love for you to explain this statement. Are you saying that the designers of 4E choose marketing tactics specifically to manipulate people into forgetting the origins of the game?


onesickgnome wrote:

4e has departed the most from the foundation of the game.

Do we agree?

No. I think 3E departed most from the foundation of the game, in that it put too much focus on the system itself and "system mastery". 4E has gotten back to D&D's roots by taking the focus off of mathematics and putting it back on the adventure.

Case in point: I have a neighbor upstairs from me that continues to play 3.5, and occasionally we trade light-hearted jabs about each other's system choice. His group's reason for sticking with 3.5 is, and I quote, "We like powergaming!" I think your accusations of munchkinism are quite misplaced.

Grand Lodge

Sebastrd wrote:
4E has gotten back to D&D's roots by taking the focus off of mathematics and putting it back on the adventure.

An honest question:

How do you then explain the disassociated mechanics of 4e (Such as some of the various daily powers) as getting back to the roots of D&D? In previous editions, one could, "in game", explain how and why a character can perform this or that ability...

Lets look at the 4e Ranger's Power of "Split the Tree" for example...

The 4e PH wrote:
You fire two arrows at once, which separate in mid-flight to strike two different targets.

If a character is able to do this once, is it not reasonable to assume that he or she should be able to at least attempt this (with the same chances of success) EVERY time they pick up a bow...

It's even listed as a martial ability, which to me says (and I could be wrong), that it is NOT magical in origin...

Sebastrd wrote:
His group's reason for sticking with 3.5 is, and I quote, "We like powergaming!" I think your accusations of munchkinism are quite misplaced.

Well, to be fair, it can be said that one could "power game" in every edition. Hence the term "Monty Hall" in 1e...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-

Dark Archive

Digitalelf wrote:

Lets look at the 4e Ranger's Power of "Split the Tree" for example...

The 4e PH wrote:
You fire two arrows at once, which separate in mid-flight to strike two different targets.

If a character is able to do this once, is it not reasonable to assume that he or she should be able to at least attempt this (with the same chances of success) EVERY time they pick up a bow...

It's even listed as a martial ability, which to me says (and I could be wrong), that it is NOT magical in origin...

In think this ability is taken from modern Pop Culture Films, namely Robin Hood with Kevin Costner. He does this 2 Arrow shooting all the time.

This can also be seen as a direct import of the 3rd edition Feat "Manyshot".

Though it might strain dispension of disbelief the further the targets stand apart.

Liberty's Edge

Logos wrote:
When you say something is foundational it should be necessary to the game, if you can remove something and still have the object in question, something is not foundational to the object in question. It just seems like there are way too many games with absolutely NO ZIPPO NULL ZERO NONE experiance or background in the kind of fantasy that Gygax was prone to recommend/write to call it foundational in any sense.

Um, why do you think some of us are loathe to call 4e "D&D"? Once you rip out too much that is "foundational", it isn't the same game.

Owning the right to a name means squat. If I somehow got the rights to the name "Corvette" and named a four cylinder economy hybrid a "Corvette", it still wouldn't be the signature American sports car, no matter how many people say the name means something...

Liberty's Edge

Tharen the Damned wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
In think this ability is taken from modern Pop Culture Films, namely Robin Hood with Kevin Costner. He does this 2 Arrow shooting all the time.

That's the point DE was trying to make, though. He could do it every time he picked up the bow. It wasn't a "daily" or "per encounter" ability, it was a "whenever he needed to hit two guys at once who were reasonably close together" ability.

Grand Lodge

houstonderek wrote:
That's the point DE was trying to make, though. He could do it every time he picked up the bow. It wasn't a "daily" or "per encounter" ability, it was a "whenever he needed to hit two guys at once who were reasonably close together" ability.

That is exactly the point I was trying to make...

d20 SRD wrote:

Manyshot [General]

Prerequisites
Dex 17, Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, base attack bonus +6

Benefit
As a standard action, you may fire two arrows at a single opponent within 30 feet. Both arrows use the same attack roll (with a -4 penalty) to determine success and deal damage normally (but see Special).

For every five points of base attack bonus you have above +6, you may add one additional arrow to this attack, to a maximum of four arrows at a base attack bonus of +16. However, each arrow after the second adds a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll (for a total penalty of -6 for three arrows and -8 for four).

Damage reduction and other resistances apply separately against each arrow fired.

Special
Regardless of the number of arrows you fire, you apply precision-based damage only once. If you score a critical hit, only the first arrow fired deals critical damage; all others deal regular damage.

A fighter may select Manyshot as one of his fighter bonus feats.

A 6th-level ranger who has chosen the archery combat style is treated as having Manyshot even if he does not have the prerequisites for it, but only when he is wearing light or no armor.

I don't see anywhere, that says a ranger can only use this ability once per day...

"Split the Tree" however, clearly state it can only be used once per day...

How do you role-play that? How do you explain that in game?

And that's what I am getting at...

Every edition had an in game reason/rational for character abilities and the like...

That's why when 1e went to 2e, there were adventures like Fate of Istus, and the Avatar/Godswar trilogy of modules/novels. Then when 2e went to 3e, we had Vecna Reborn, and The Apocalypse Stone...

Not saying they were great adventures, but they all made an attempt to give an in game explanation of the game's changed mechanics (and not just the how the fluff of the setting had been changed)...

The designers back then felt it was important to keep the mechanics of the game associated within the game world itself...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


houstonderek wrote:


That's the point DE was trying to make, though. He could do it every time he picked up the bow. It wasn't a "daily" or "per encounter" ability, it was a "whenever he needed to hit two guys at once who were reasonably close together" ability.

Yep. In 3e, we had "At Wills", they were called "Feats". I honestly hate the "Powers" mechanic in 4e. It feels so restricting to me, and it baffles me when 4e players I know say how they can do so much in combat, yeah, but only once? Sure, there are minor magical abilities that Wizards and such get to do at certain intervals, drawing from a magical source, but they took martial abilities and slapped a timed restriction on them, to "force" the player to do more than one thing. I think that's where a lot of the blinded argument of "you can do more than stand there and swing" comes from. Sure, but everything else you can only do once (even use magic items?). OK, some things take a great toll on the body/mind, and can't be used all the time, like a Barbarian's Rage ability; it puts a great strain on the body. But this "Split the Tree", should really be any time the Ranger has a bow in one hand and arrows in the other, so long as the Ranger itself is proficient enough to make such a maneuver. Oh wait, that's what the Manyshot feat was for...

On the other hand, just to make things fair, I can respect the notion of applying the Powers system to clean up combat maneuvers a bit and standardize things. Sure, they may have sped things up a bit as far as combat goes, but what did they lose in the process?

For me, this is where things have pulled so far away from traditional DnD. It almost removes logic and enforces "because the rules say so".


Digitalelf wrote:
Well, to be fair, it can be said that one could "power game" in every edition. Hence the term "Monty Hall" in 1e...

I agree with you and Derek about the 1/day Manyshot example, but feel compelled to point out that "Monty Haul" (a pun on the name of game show host Monty Hall) described a DM/campaign that gave out ungodly amounts of treasure/xp, usually including magic items far above the power levels of the characters, for very little playing skill or effort. It had nothing to do with any player choices whatsoever, so it wasn't about powergaming/scamming the rules for more powerful combinations; it was about DMs thinking "vorpal swords are neat!" and putting three of them in a kobold lair.


If 4th edition is so bad, you should start looking with a hard eye towards 3.x and Pathfinder.

I don't believe I mentioned an edition, all of my dnd games have been without the benefit of Appendix N, and that's in some Dnd Clones, 3.0, 3.5, and 4th.

You wanna tell me I haven't been playng dnd (or at least dnd "right") all along? Well I want to tell you something

B~#%#&!$

Grand Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
so it wasn't about powergaming/scamming the rules for more powerful combinations; it was about DMs thinking "vorpal swords are neat!" and putting three of them in a kobold lair.

Ah, but what if you had a whole group with a shared world, and everyone took turns DMing that one shared world, and they all thought "vorpal swords are neat" and handed them out to the players when they were the DM...

Not such a far fetched nor extreme case example I'm afraid...

I knew many who played this way back then unfortunately (granted, this was grade school/jr. high, but still)...

It was as much then as it is now, a case of power gaming...

-That One Digitalelf Fellow-


Logos wrote:

You wanna tell me I haven't been playng dnd (or at least dnd "right") all along? Well I want to tell you something

Like I said, you can watch "Kill Bill" as nothing but a new action movie... but that missing the source material sort of deprives you of part of the experience. It's not "wrong" -- you still might love the movie -- but it's only half of what Tarantino intended.

In 1e, part of the fun of encountering a regenerating troll was the ability to say, "Cool! That's the troll from Three Hearts and Three Lions!" -- as opposed to any other troll from just anywhere. That wasn't the whole point obviously, and you could miss the reference completely and still enjoy the game, but the game was a lot more fun for the people who were into that kind of fiction and caught all the "in-jokes" and "easter eggs" that it was chock full of.


Logos wrote:


You wanna tell me I haven't been playng dnd (or at least dnd "right") all along? Well I want to tell you something

b@&@*!%~

If WotC renamed Star Wars Saga Edition as Dungeons and Dragons: Sci-Fi it would technically be DnD too. So, take that as you will. Play what you want.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Logos wrote:

You wanna tell me I haven't been playng dnd (or at least dnd "right") all along? Well I want to tell you something

Insinuates that people who have the are familure with Appendix Z have 'more fun' or better fun or something.

Sorry bub, I somehow dont think that the glee of finding an easter egg is an excuse or an argument that gygax's bedside reading companion is foundational to the game.

If you guys can't see how circular this all is (lets not start the argument over whether appendix Z is foundational to dnd by presuming that appendix Z is foundational to dnd) I give up. The fact that you guys are arguing you have 'more' fun or that others need the foundations to still be playing dnd or playing it right or something like that. Well best of sodding luck to you all, Its pretty obvious you dont want a discussion here.

Dark Archive

Digitalelf wrote:

["Split the Tree" however, clearly state it can only be used once per day...

How do you role-play that? How do you explain that in game?

And that's what I am getting at...

Ah, now I get it too.

You could state that the concentration nessessary to shoot these 2 arrows is too much to do it more than once per day...
Yeah, that i a feeble attempt to explain the power.
Or the at will rogue power "positioning strike". E.g.: a halfling rogue with a high charisma rolling a natural 20 would be able to shift a collossal great wyrm for a few squares (if there are no immunities, don't know the MM). How do I explain this?

I really like the tactical aspects of 4th edition combat.
But where in 1st - 3rd edition I could re-imagine the combat as film scenes, I play 4th edition combat like a board game.

Liberty's Edge

Logos wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Logos wrote:

You wanna tell me I haven't been playng dnd (or at least dnd "right") all along? Well I want to tell you something

Insinuates that people who have the are familure with Appendix Z have 'more fun' or better fun or something.

Sorry bub, I somehow dont think that the glee of finding an easter egg is an excuse or an argument that gygax's bedside reading companion is foundational to the game.

If you guys can't see how circular this all is (lets not start the argument over whether appendix Z is foundational to dnd by presuming that appendix Z is foundational to dnd) I give up. The fact that you guys are arguing you have 'more' fun or that others need the foundations to still be playing dnd or playing it right or something like that. Well best of sodding luck to you all, Its pretty obvious you dont want a discussion here.

No, we love a discussion. We've had some awesome discussion on this thread, in fact.

What we don't want is some childish b%%+%*#~ from someone who's feelings are hurt because the mean old grognards don't like 4e crapping on our thread.

:)

901 to 950 of 1,233 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / 4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism All Messageboards