4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism

[houstonderek]

hogarth wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

And if I, as a player, think something is so incredibly stupidly ridiculous that it completely makes me remember I'm not an adventurer questing to [insert whatever the adventure is] but I'm really just a guy approaching 40 looking at a sheet of paper and some dice, well...

Is it really any more ridiculous than saying "Thor favors you enough to allow you to heal wounds, but only if you specifically ask him at the beginning of the day, and if you later change your mind and want a battle blessing instead, tough bananas."?

The only difference is that one ridiculousness is bathed in the warm glow of nostalgia and one is some dang new-fangled invention. :-)

(Note: I'm not really that crazy about the at-will/encounter/daily system of powers, but it makes as much sense as Vancian spell-casting, i.e. not at all.)

I had this long ranty thing typed up, had to reboot and lost the cut/paste thingy, but it all boils down to this:

I'm getting too old, I guess. When I played soccer as a kid, there were winners and losers. Teachers gave "F"s. When you got sent to your room, it wasn't a suite of electronics that would make Mission Control at JSC envious.

We had to use our imaginations for everything. We didn't have an X-Box/computer doing it for us. (Yes, even then, we knew Atari sucked). Our game was based on childhood like that, not childhoods spent in front of CRTs and flat panels.

Meh.

[JRM]

minkscooter wrote:

I admire what Skip Williams was trying to do, and I think he was taking the game in the right direction. A good DM wants his decisions to make sense and be believable to players. *SNIP*

You're right, it's telling that Skip actually employs the analogy of nailing down loose boards (presumably to avoid tripping). So yes, I admit I prefer more of what you call nailing down the rules. However, I do count agreed-upon house rules as "nailed down". *SNIP*

I think the point was player empowerment, not legalistic slavishness to what is written. And I do think that player empowerment encourages better DM behavior. (Abuses still need to be prevented, but on the plus side, nothing exposes problems with the rules faster than players abusing them.) Most players are willing to sacrifice some of that power for the sake of immersion in the campaign world, but are less inclined to resent it if it's part of a negotiation with the DM.

We seem to be straying away from the topic of Gygaxian Naturalism here, but it's an interesting subject so I think it's worth a somewhat over-elaborate digression.

There are all kinds of issues tangled up with this, but I'll see if I can pull a few of them out.

The first should be the most obvious: it's all a matter of taste. Some groups are fine with a whimsical DM who just makes up whatever they like, others would go batty.

The second is that's it's a matter of degree. I find a little "appearance of DM fiat" is a good thing in a game, helping things run smoothly and enhancing the fun for all involved. Going over the line in any direction can mess up a game, although where said line is varies from person to person.

If you nail down the rules too much it denies much opportunity for spontaneity, if the boards are so loose the DM's whims may result in all the player characters falling through the holes.

As for helping the DM make believable decisions, that requires the rules to be believable. There are a elements of the rules in all versions of D&D that aren't terribly good for sustaining verisimilitude. In the case of 3E, some of the ways initiative and movement actions work can create situations I find a bit absurd.

I agree with you that house rules can be as good as "nailed down" core rules. It’s fairness and consistency that counts (or at least the appearance of it) more than whether its in the SRD.

Even player empowerment can be a bad thing if taken too far. In extreme cases the legendary CharOps munchkins loom over the horizon, threatening to wreck the DM's world with their answer to Pun-Pun, or you get "jerk players" with such an inflated sense of entitlement they'll throw a hissy fit if you disallow a particularly juicy exploit they've come up with.

minkscooter wrote:

Someone pointed out that 4e tries to make DM'ing easier and encourage more people to feel comfortable in the role of DM. I actually think that's a worthy goal, but what was traded in the effort to achieve it?

Oh yes, the much greater ease of DM set up is one of the things I like about fourth edition. I've gotten a bit disillusioned with the fiddlyness of 3rd edition's NPC and monster generation.

I also feel they cut too much off some of 4E beasties, although I can see why they did it. What's the point of 15 options for a creature that will only live for 4 rounds?

Your multi-optioned Monster Sample Tactics is a good solution. It would use up quite a lot of space though. Wizards gave detailed tactic-sequences for some of the more complicated foes in a few 3E Monster Manuals, but most went a bit linear, kind of "W in round 1, X in round 2, then alternate Y & Z" tactics.

[JRM]

houstonderek wrote:

I had this long ranty thing typed up, had to reboot and lost the cut/paste thingy, but it all boils down to this:

I'm getting too old, I guess. When I played soccer as a kid, there were winners and losers. Teachers gave "F"s. When you got sent to your room, it wasn't a suite of electronics that would make Mission Control at JSC envious.

We had to use our imaginations for everything. We didn't have an X-Box/computer doing it for us. (Yes, even then, we knew Atari sucked). Our game was based on childhood like that, not childhoods spent in front of CRTs and flat panels.

Well I won't agree with you there. Just because they take a different approach doesn't mean their imaginations are poorer. Some of the younger gamers I've met have had richer approach to fantasy than some of the more stuck-in-the-mud oldschool players.

I don't care much for the "My character can not lose" approach to play, but there's still a lot of good in the new blood.

[bugleyman]

houstonderek wrote:

I had this long ranty thing typed up, had to reboot and lost the cut/paste thingy, but it all boils down to this:

I'm getting too old, I guess. When I played soccer as a kid, there were winners and losers. Teachers gave "F"s. When you got sent to your room, it wasn't a suite of electronics that would make Mission Control at JSC envious.

We had to use our imaginations for everything. We didn't have an X-Box/computer doing it for us. (Yes, even then, we knew Atari sucked). Our game was based on childhood like that, not childhoods spent in front of CRTs and flat panels.

Meh.

Forgive me, but as someone roughly the same age as your are (37 this month), I don't think you're being fair. I guess I'd have to say (pardon the Billy Joel quotation), that "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

[Pax Veritas]

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:

Heh. Pax removed someone's cartouche from the temple wall.

car-touche

-noun
1. architecture - a rounded, convex surface, usually surrounded with carved ornamental scrollwork, for receiving a painted or low-relief decoration, as an escutcheon.
2. an oval or oblong figure, as on ancient Egyptian monuments, enclosing characters that represent the name of a sovereign.

Love it, M! Very observant and funny of you. LOL!

[houstonderek]

bugleyman wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

I had this long ranty thing typed up, had to reboot and lost the cut/paste thingy, but it all boils down to this:

I'm getting too old, I guess. When I played soccer as a kid, there were winners and losers. Teachers gave "F"s. When you got sent to your room, it wasn't a suite of electronics that would make Mission Control at JSC envious.

We had to use our imaginations for everything. We didn't have an X-Box/computer doing it for us. (Yes, even then, we knew Atari sucked). Our game was based on childhood like that, not childhoods spent in front of CRTs and flat panels.

Meh.

Forgive me, but as someone roughly the same age as your are (37 this month), I don't think you're being fair. I guess I'd have to say (pardon the Billy Joel quotation), that "the good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

Fair? Maybe not. But then, "fair" is one of those new concepts also. It isn't "fair" for kids to fail in school, apparently, or feel the sting of defeat in a sporting event. Doesn't do much for the poor souls when they enter the work force and discover, my oh my, life isn't "fair".

Just looking at the various threads here informs me that the game has passed me by. When I'm a "dick" for not fudging a roll, or for including stuff characters are supposed to run away from, or I think magic should be powerful, and not some watered down parlor trick, enchanted items should be wondrous and earned (and not something you find at a store "Welcome to Magic Mart!"), yeah, I'm no longer the target audience for the modern game publisher. No, now it's all about some contrived "story". Characters are supposed to be super heroes at level one. Death is planned when it is "dramatically appropriate". Everything needs to be "epic".

Meh.

[bugleyman]

My last post was eaten...let's try again.

houstonderek wrote:

Fair? Maybe not. But then, "fair" is one of those new concepts also. It isn't "fair" for kids to fail in school, apparently, or feel the sting of defeat in a sporting event. Doesn't do much for the poor souls when they enter the work force and discover, my oh my, life isn't "fair".

Fairness is not a new concept. The problem (imo, of course), is that many things done in the name of fairness are anything but. People who deserve to fail should; no, they must.

But that so-called "fairness" is often abused, or that life isn't fair (which you're totally right about, BTW); these realities don't obviate the need for fairness. If anything, they make it more important that we strive to treat each other fairly.

houstonderek wrote:

Just looking at the various threads here informs me that the game has passed me by. When I'm a "dick" for not fudging a roll, or for including stuff characters are supposed to run away from, or I think magic should be powerful, and not some watered down parlor trick, enchanted items should be wondrous and earned (and not something you find at a store "Welcome to Magic Mart!"), yeah, I'm no longer the target audience for the modern game publisher. No, now it's all about some contrived "story". Characters are supposed to be super heroes at level one. Death is planned when it is "dramatically appropriate". Everything needs to be "epic".

Meh.

And those are matters of taste, and I certainly don't begrudge you venting a bit. All I'm saying is that not everyone under the age of 20 is a worthless slug looking for a free ride. :)

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

houstonderek wrote:

Just the way the his comment reads (yeah, it's short, but still) makes me think a lot of 4e WAS dictated from above, not developed whole cloth in house...

Depends on what you mean. There were likely guidelines coming from the top. Stuff like 'Make it more inclusive' or 'insure that the later books sell better' and 'make it PG 13' etc.

That said its improbable that specific mechanics were being mandated from above. Trivia note - the current version of 4E is actually the 3rd try at developing the game. Various WotC designers talk about being part of the 1st attempt or the 2nd attempt. That means its unlikely that the corporate heads at Hasbro designed the game and gave it to WotC because, if that were the case then there would be no need to go back to the drawing board three times. They'd have just implemented whatever the muckety mucks at WotC dictated.

[houstonderek]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Just the way the his comment reads (yeah, it's short, but still) makes me think a lot of 4e WAS dictated from above, not developed whole cloth in house...

Depends on what you mean. There were likely guidelines coming from the top. Stuff like 'Make it more inclusive' or 'insure that the later books sell better' and 'make it PG 13' etc.

That said its improbable that specific mechanics were being mandated from above. Trivia note - the current version of 4E is actually the 3rd try at developing the game. Various WotC designers talk about being part of the 1st attempt or the 2nd attempt. That means its unlikely that the corporate heads at Hasbro designed the game and gave it to WotC because, if that were the case then there would be no need to go back to the drawing board three times. They'd have just implemented whatever the muckety mucks at WotC dictated.

Or, maybe the first two attempts retained a smidge of compatibility with previous editions.

:)

[houstonderek]

bugleyman wrote:

My last post was eaten...let's try again.

houstonderek wrote:

Fair? Maybe not. But then, "fair" is one of those new concepts also. It isn't "fair" for kids to fail in school, apparently, or feel the sting of defeat in a sporting event. Doesn't do much for the poor souls when they enter the work force and discover, my oh my, life isn't "fair".

Fairness is not a new concept. The problem (imo, of course), is that many things done in the name of fairness are anything but. People who deserve to fail should; no, they must.

But that so-called "fairness" is often abused, or that life isn't fair (which you're totally right about, BTW); these realities don't obviate the need for fairness. If anything, they make it more important that we strive to treat each other fairly.

houstonderek wrote:

Just looking at the various threads here informs me that the game has passed me by. When I'm a "dick" for not fudging a roll, or for including stuff characters are supposed to run away from, or I think magic should be powerful, and not some watered down parlor trick, enchanted items should be wondrous and earned (and not something you find at a store "Welcome to Magic Mart!"), yeah, I'm no longer the target audience for the modern game publisher. No, now it's all about some contrived "story". Characters are supposed to be super heroes at level one. Death is planned when it is "dramatically appropriate". Everything needs to be "epic".

Meh.

And those are matters of taste, and I certainly don't begrudge you venting a bit. All I'm saying is that not everyone under the age of 20 is a worthless slug looking for a free ride. :)

Oh, I know. Just being a fuddy duddy. Something just struck a nerve there and caused diarrhea of the keyboard, so to speak.

;)

[Digitalelf]

houstonderek wrote:

Just looking at the various threads here informs me that the game has passed me by.

I'm afraid I feel the same way...

I'm pushing 40 HARD, and I just cannot fathom the appeal that 4e holds...

Oh well...

-That One Very Old Digitalelf Fellow-

[houstonderek]

Digitalelf wrote:

I'm pushing 40 HARD, and I just cannot fathom the appeal that 4e holds...

Yep, 10 more months before I hit that wall...

[Digitalelf]

houstonderek wrote:

Yep, 10 more months before I hit that wall...

HaLf of that time for me :-(

[bugleyman]

Digitalelf wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Yep, 10 more months before I hit that wall...

HaLf of that time for me :-(

Wow; and I thought three years was looking grim. I'll have to remember to practice more respect for my elders on these boards. :D

[Bill Dunn]

houstonderek wrote:

Fair? Maybe not. But then, "fair" is one of those new concepts also. It isn't "fair" for kids to fail in school, apparently, or feel the sting of defeat in a sporting event. Doesn't do much for the poor souls when they enter the work force and discover, my oh my, life isn't "fair".

Just looking at the various threads here informs me that the game has passed me by. When I'm a "dick" for not fudging a roll, or for including stuff characters are supposed to run away from, or I think magic should be powerful, and not some watered down parlor trick, enchanted items should be wondrous and earned (and not something you find at a store "Welcome to Magic Mart!"), yeah, I'm no longer the target audience for the modern game publisher. No, now it's all about some contrived "story". Characters are supposed to be super heroes at level one. Death is planned when it is "dramatically appropriate". Everything needs to be "epic".

Meh.

You're starting to sound like that old man down the block, the one with the tufts of hair sticking out of his ears, who comes out on the porch in his boxers and slippers yelling, "You kids get offa my yard!"

[Pax Veritas]

.

[Jandrem]

You dang whipper-snappers with your whiz-boos and hoodits, throwin yer Powers and Dailie's and sumfinerother. Hooey. Back in my day, we rolled our saving throws!

[Pax Veritas]

.

[houstonderek]

Bill Dunn wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

Fair? Maybe not. But then, "fair" is one of those new concepts also. It isn't "fair" for kids to fail in school, apparently, or feel the sting of defeat in a sporting event. Doesn't do much for the poor souls when they enter the work force and discover, my oh my, life isn't "fair".

Just looking at the various threads here informs me that the game has passed me by. When I'm a "dick" for not fudging a roll, or for including stuff characters are supposed to run away from, or I think magic should be powerful, and not some watered down parlor trick, enchanted items should be wondrous and earned (and not something you find at a store "Welcome to Magic Mart!"), yeah, I'm no longer the target audience for the modern game publisher. No, now it's all about some contrived "story". Characters are supposed to be super heroes at level one. Death is planned when it is "dramatically appropriate". Everything needs to be "epic".

Meh.

You're starting to sound like that old man down the block, the one with the tufts of hair sticking out of his ears, who comes out on the porch in his boxers and slippers yelling, "You kids get offa my yard!"

You forgot the shotgun...

;)

[Pax Veritas]

Cheer up 'ol timers. This one's for you, from Pax:

Keepin' The Faith
music by Billy Joel, words by Pax Veritas

If it seems like we're
Remembering Gary Gygax
We're not just feeling older
And missing our younger days

Oh, we share knowledge of
Gary's style of gaming
Because the past is something worth saving
In the way games are played, oh yeah

And we would not be here now
If we never had the red box
And we're not ashamed to say
That gnome PCs were our friends

Oh, 4e receives criticism
Cause Gygaxian Naturalism
Is part of how we play, yeah

That's why we're keeping the faith
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Keeping the faith

We used 10-foot poles
Turned sconces
To reveal a secret door
Surprise rolls made sense
With a simple d6
And a quick marching order

Oh, we showed up with Zocchi dice
You know the kind
With precision edges
That didn't roll far, oh yeah

We met the Circle of Eight
And hung out in Greyhawk
Played TSR modules and
Our homebrew campaign games

Oh, the rules conveyed believability
Not video game similarity
Our throws meant save-or-die, yeah

So we are keeping the faith
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Keeping the faith

IP owners conceal
Our game's history
PDF downloads
No longer for sale

They destroyed our
Beloved Forgotten Realms
And the 4e game
Isn't d&d
Just because you can
Still use its name

Learned long words
The game was an education
We lost a lot of fights
But it taught us
How to lose okay

Oh, we tweaked system
Rules but not too much
We found we could be grognards
And still stay kewl and in-touch anyway
Oh yes, we did

We found out game tradition
Ain't just about mechanics
We killed an awful lot of
Henchman and hirelings
Drank a lot of Mountain Dew

We wanted to be Nerof Gasgol
We traveled to a place called Sigil
In a donut shape, oh yeah

We were keeping the faith
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Keeping the faith

You know v.3.5
Continues to thrive
And the OGL
Can't be taken away

We told you our reasons
For Gygaxian tradition
And we're continuing the legacy
With Pathfinder RPG

Oh, I'm going to hunker down with Gamemastery
Ain't it wonderful to be a GM
In the PAIZO way, yeah
Where the legacy stays, yeah
A style Monte Cook plays, yeah

We're keeping the faith
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Keeping the faith
We're keeping the faith
Yes, we are

You know we're keeping the faith
Oh, yes, we are
You know we're keeping the faith
Oh, you know we are

[hogarth]

Pax Veritas wrote:

.

Pax Veritas wrote:

.

Agreed. ;-)

[onesickgnome]

THATS STINKING FULL OF WIN AND AWESOME PAX!

[eric warren]

Pax Veritas wrote:

I wish to share James Maliszewski's outstanding article from Grognardia (see below) with the 3.5/d20/OGL/PRPG community because it eloquently defines the Gygaxian Naturalism that has been present during much of the history and tradition of D&D. The 4E forum has recently made me feel very unwelcome, and this article belongs to the forum most concerned about preserving the history and traditions of the hobby of role-playing. James honors our Paizonian leader, Erik Mona, by quoting him on the front page of his blog.

IMHO, among the many different facets of the "feel" of the game formerly solely known as Dungeons and Dragons (now affectionately played as Pathfinder Role-playing Game, Castles & Crusades, and many, many others....) Gygaxian "Naturalism" as James describes it has been central to much of the campaigning I've done over the past 25 years. Gygaxian "Naturalism" is still strongly present in the games I DM today, and the games I play in. I also perceive a lot of what James describes in his description of Gygaxian "Naturalism" to be found in the monthly Pathfinder Chronicles I receive from PAIZO.

After reading the article, feel free to discuss your concept of Gygaxian Naturalism as you see it, or in what ways it captures part of the essence of what the "feel" of the game is all about, along with any related discussions.

The Article, Gygaxian "Naturalism" by James Maliszewski:
"I refer, from time to time, to a concept called "Gygaxian Naturalism." I realize that I've never actually explained what I mean by this phrase. As I use it, it refers to a tendency, present in the OD&D rules and reaching its fullest flower in AD&D, to go beyond describing monsters purely as opponents/obstacles for the player characters by giving game mechanics that serve little purpose other than to ground those monsters in the campaign world.

This naturalism can take many forms. For example, OD&D often tells us that for...

Great summary of a major flaw with 4.0

[Kirth Gersen]

eric warren wrote:

Great summary of a major flaw with 4.0

And, in my opinion, in 3.0 and 3.5 as well.

[pres man]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

eric warren wrote:

Great summary of a major flaw with 4.0

And, in my opinion, in 3.0 and 3.5 as well.

"Flaw" or "Feature"?

[Kirth Gersen]

pres man wrote:

"Flaw" or "Feature"?

Take your pick. For us grognards, anything that leeches away that 1e "feel" without replacing it with something demonstrably smoother or more robust is a flaw. Others might consider the slaughter of cows to be an excellent thing. All a matter of taste.

[JRM]

Digitalelf wrote:

I'm afraid I feel the same way...

I'm pushing 40 HARD, and I just cannot fathom the appeal that 4e holds...

Oh well...

-That One Very Old Digitalelf Fellow-

houstonderek wrote:

Yep, 10 more months before I hit that wall...

bugleyman wrote:

Wow; and I thought three years was looking grim. I'll have to remember to practice more respect for my elders on these boards. :D

Gee, thanks for making me feel like an antique. I passed the barrier that is causing you such trepidation a couple of years ago.

Don't worry though, the gaming can be just as good on The Other Side. ;)

[Digitalelf]

JRM wrote:

Gee, thanks for making me feel like an antique.

Not a problem! Anytime there old-timer, I aim to please... ;-P

[JRM]

Digitalelf wrote:

Not a problem! Anytime there old-timer, I aim to please... ;-P

Is that sass talk ye young punk? Don't make me to fetch me cane and give you a whuppin'! >:[

Us old-timers have so many levels and character classes we can't even remember them all, so's you'd better watch yer lip!

Or is it that I'm just getting forgetful in my dotage? :P

[David Marks]

Because you guys know I'm always thinking about you, when I stumbled over these threads this morning I instantly thought of this one.

4e's Appendix N seems interesting (halfway through currently) particularly post #11 which is Mearls's own take on what inspired him for 4e.

They are discussing Mearls's comments over here on ENWorld as well in case you are interested in seeing others take on his words.

Don't say I never did anything for you guys. ;)

[WotC's Nightmare]

Well, I can't see the "inspiration" for those classes apparent anywhere in the mechanics of those classes. If he was trying to make classes "feel" like what inspired them, he didn't do such a good job. But then again, I don't know how it would be possible to recreate any semblance of a memorable character from pulp fantasy novels using 4E's mechanics. They are pretty much the antithesis of the pulp action "feel" that D&D was derived from.

[Dario Nardi]

David Marks wrote:

Because you guys know I'm always thinking about you, when I stumbled over these threads this morning I instantly thought of this one.

4e's Appendix N seems interesting (halfway through currently) particularly post #11 which is Mearls's own take on what inspired him for 4e.

They are discussing Mearls's comments over here on ENWorld as well in case you are interested in seeing others take on his words.

Don't say I never did anything for you guys. ;)

I just want to share that reading Mearl's comments on the RPG.net thread made me nauseous.

It made me realize that 4E's design principles aren't just some fiendish scheme. The designers really believe in what they've wrought.

[Fuchs]

Judging from what Mearls has written he better hide whatever it is he takes before the DEA takes notice.

[WotC's Nightmare]

Yeah, I can't really see, how heroes of pulp fantasy could have inspired any 4e mechanics.

[Sir Lysander]

Pax - THANK YOU for that article. That hit the nail squarely on the head as to what I could *feel* was missing (and I haven't gone past the pre-production 4E dross) from 4E and slipping away from 3.xE.

And I completely agree that Mr. Mearls must have been smoking something. Legolas, the ranger. Why not use the guy Tolkien actually CALLED a ranger as the archetypical Ranger?

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Sir Lysander wrote:

Pax - THANK YOU for that article. That hit the nail squarely on the head as to what I could *feel* was missing (and I haven't gone past the pre-production 4E dross) from 4E and slipping away from 3.xE.

And I completely agree that Mr. Mearls must have been smoking something. Legolas, the ranger. Why not use the guy Tolkien actually CALLED a ranger as the archetypical Ranger?

Seems like an odd argument. The last time the Ranger felt anything like Tolkien's Aragorn was maybe 2nd edition and, come to think of it, I'd be pretty hard pressed to really relate the animal companion loving divine spell casters of 1st and 2nd with Tolkien's Ranger.

My feeling is Aragorn has never really served as much of a source of inspiration for the Ranger except possibly originally in the idea of having a fighter that works well in the woods. Not really surprising as Gygax was no Tolkein fan.

In any case it seems silly to limit ones sources of inspiration to the original incarnation, I doubt its even possible to do that, inspiration being a pretty ephemeral concept and likely to strike from all sorts of directions. Often ones source of inspiration is actually best left unsaid. If ones feat was inspired by an obviously staged move you saw on late night wrestling then probably you don't mention your source - or you make up a better story that somehow entwines Moby Dick with its genesis.

[Shadowlord]

I only played 4E for a whopping 1 game session that consisted of me, one other player in my group and our DM. That said, I may not be as educated on the system as some people on this thread. It seemed to me after reading about the classes and playing our test game that 4E was designed to appeal to the World of Warcraft generation. Oh don't get me wrong, I think WoW is entertaining and has its place, but it is not something I would wait all week to gather around a table and play. I think there is something to be said for the old 3.5 and I am sad to see where it seems to me D&D has gone. It seems like the creators want everyone class/race to be equal, but that just isn't the case, and I don’t think it should be. I think you should tread lightly when you cross the old mage who still has power in his eyes. I think you should dread the night an assassin finds you in the dark. I think you should cower when the blade of a scared, veteran of the battlefield is upon you. Not everyone should be exactly equal in every situation and that is what it felt like to me; make everyone equal so no one feels left out. The same thing is done on many online games to ensure everyone is equal and happy. That’s just my take on it.

As for Gygaxian Naturalism, I have to admit that is a very new term to me but something I have tried to incorporate in my own past campaigns without knowing the word for it. It is something I have been growing into over years of play and intend to grow in further, in fact this thread has given me many new ideas, thank you.

I am sure this type of thinking and playing "could" and in some cases will be incorporated into many 4E games. But I am equally sure that many new players/DMs will pick up the books and see a simple hack and slash game that’s only difference from an online game is that it takes imagination rather than a graphics card.

If the intention was to cut out the story so that the DM was free to add his own, I believe it could be a good tool for long time experienced DMs, but the new guys will be lost. It is always easier to cut away pieces of the story you don’t want and add your own than to create your own with zero guidance.

[Fabes DM]

You're a bit late to the party with the whole WoW thing.

[Shadowlord]

Fabes DM wrote:

You're a bit late to the party with the whole WoW thing.

I suspected I might have been but I am new to these forums and don't want to read the whole 21 page thread before I post. I read the original post and several others and thought I would throw in my feelings on the subject.

[Bill Dunn]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

Sir Lysander wrote:

Pax - THANK YOU for that article. That hit the nail squarely on the head as to what I could *feel* was missing (and I haven't gone past the pre-production 4E dross) from 4E and slipping away from 3.xE.

And I completely agree that Mr. Mearls must have been smoking something. Legolas, the ranger. Why not use the guy Tolkien actually CALLED a ranger as the archetypical Ranger?

Seems like an odd argument. The last time the Ranger felt anything like Tolkien's Aragorn was maybe 2nd edition and, come to think of it, I'd be pretty hard pressed to really relate the animal companion loving divine spell casters of 1st and 2nd with Tolkien's Ranger.

My feeling is Aragorn has never really served as much of a source of inspiration for the Ranger except possibly originally in the idea of having a fighter that works well in the woods. Not really surprising as Gygax was no Tolkein fan.

Gygax may have been no fan, but he didn't design the ranger either. That class debuted in the Strategic Review and was largely just translated over to 1e.

To me, the inspiration of the 1e ranger has always, clearly, been Aragorn from LotR. Excellent tracking abilities, moderately good stealth and perception (surprise benefits), use of odd scrying-type devices, restrictions on wealth and behavior.

2e is where the inspiration moved away from Aragorn and to Drizzt - TSR's own in-house cash cow.

[Bluenose]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Gygax may have been no fan, but he didn't design the ranger either. That class debuted in the Strategic Review and was largely just translated over to 1e.

To me, the inspiration of the 1e ranger has always, clearly, been Aragorn from LotR. Excellent tracking abilities, moderately good stealth and perception (surprise benefits), use of odd scrying-type devices, restrictions on wealth and behavior.

2e is where the inspiration moved away from Aragorn and to Drizzt - TSR's own in-house cash cow.

Alternatively, that like with every other class there's more than one literary source it could be derived from. Robin Hood is just as good if not a better fit.

[CourtFool]

The banner is hoisted again. To arms, brothers! To arms!

Snickers.

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Gygax may have been no fan, but he didn't design the ranger either. That class debuted in the Strategic Review and was largely just translated over to 1e.
To me, the inspiration of the 1e ranger has always, clearly, been Aragorn from LotR. Excellent tracking abilities, moderately good stealth and perception (surprise benefits), use of odd scrying-type devices, restrictions on wealth and behavior.

2e is where the inspiration moved away from Aragorn and to Drizzt - TSR's own in-house cash cow.

The ranger from Strategic Review is an interesting bit of game lore. I'll have to file that away. In any case I suppose I can see your points but animal companions and druid spells always struck me as a much more salient part of the class at the games table.

I guess I agree with you that the OD&D Ranger was Aragon but suspect that the addition of the animal companions and druidic spells and the lack of common scrying devices or even all that many opportunities to track shifted the emphasis of rangers by 2nd Ed.

[LazarX]

Shadowlord wrote:

As for Gygaxian Naturalism, I have to admit that is a very new term to me but something I have tried to incorporate in my own past campaigns without knowing the word for it.

Gygax Naturalism is really nothing more than another name for verisimilitude, that sense you get when you have a world which makes sense, which has a feel of consistency within it's own premises, whether it be fantasy or Star Trek, (although in verisimilitude, Babylon 5 was a far more strict adherence than Trek ever wanted to be.)

Or we can go by the dictionary definitions provided by Answer.com

verisimilitude

1. The quality of appearing to be true or real. See synonims at truth.
2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real.

[Pax Veritas]

Shadowlord wrote:

Fabes DM wrote:

You're a bit late to the party with the whole WoW thing.

I suspected I might have been but I am new to these forums and don't want to read the whole 21 page thread before I post. I read the original post and several others and thought I would throw in my feelings on the subject.

Shadowlord, thank you for your comments. Welcome to the forums.

[Mairkurion {tm}]

Hey Shadowlord, welcome to the boards. You can always just go back and read my posts in the thread on verisimilitude. ;P That's my interpretation of LazarX's comment above. Those are the comments that CourtFool made me recently rewrite in shorter form in another thread, so that he could come back here and snicker. X@

[LazarX]

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:

I guess I agree with you that the OD&D Ranger was Aragon but suspect that the addition of the animal companions and druidic spells and the lack of common scrying devices or even all that many opportunities to track shifted the emphasis of rangers by 2nd Ed.

I used to think that, but now I've come to the feeling that the original Ranger was assembled from a list of inspirations, not just one. While Aragorn was the main dish, I suspect a side of Tarzan and a dash of John Carter was added as well. Added as well to the Druid, as the original animal companions were not class features but a product of the Animal Friendship spell both classes shared in 1st edition.

The move to Drizzt was a logical one, one it was an acknowledgement that Fantasy had moved beyond Tolkien and there was only so much they could do with the Aragorn motif without risking a lawsuit from the Tolkien estate. (giving Rangers the specific ability to use crystal balls was pushing it.)

Drizzt was an edgy character for a new generation of gamers. And it was the start of giving the Ranger some badly needed divergence from his orignal "Fighter in the Woods" model. The dumping of two levels of magic-user spells and the undefined druid list in favor of a specific ranger spell list was another move in the right direction.

[LazarX]

David Marks wrote:

Because you guys know I'm always thinking about you, when I stumbled over these threads this morning I instantly thought of this one.

4e's Appendix N seems interesting (halfway through currently) particularly post #11 which is Mearls's own take on what inspired him for 4e.

They are discussing Mearls's comments over here on ENWorld as well in case you are interested in seeing others take on his words.

Don't say I never did anything for you guys. ;)

I loved the apolectic fit some folks had when Mearls listed Gandalf as an inspiration for the 4e Invoker. Having read the Invoker class I'd have to agree that I've never seen a class that fit the character as well. Most seem to forget that in Tolkien's saga the Wizards were actually a class of divine beings, not classic book magicians.

[houstonderek]

LazarX wrote:

Drizzt was an edgy character for a new generation of gamers.

Calling Drizzt "edgy" is like calling an emo band edgy.

[Kirth Gersen]

houstonderek wrote:

Calling Drizzt "edgy" is like calling an emo band edgy.

Thank god we were able to listen to Black Flag, DKs, and the Pistols when they were called "punk" instead...