I have seen and read some rather compelling evidence where history, through archeology has shown the Bible to be correct (or at the very least, plausible)...
There is a rather enormous leap from "a particular section or passage is historically accurate, or at least plausible" vs. "the entire Bible, from cover to cover, must therefore be inerrant."
|
What Sources did he use? Did he make it up for the Masses (God whispered it in his ears alone?)I don't know the sources he may have used...
But I do know that if you believe in the divine, then Divine inspiration is an acceptable answer...
On the flip side, (as a general example, and not necessarily related directly to this particular discussion) I have seen and read some rather compelling evidence where history, through archeology has shown the Bible to be correct (or at the very least, plausible)...
As an example of the "at least plausible", see THIS...
And this is what a Berkeley professor says about that particular documentary. I am very skeptical of most of The History Channel's recent documentaries, and I dislike their sensationalist bent. I recommend this PBS documentary if you're really interested in Biblical-era archaeology. Here is a review of the NOVA episode. One interesting thing to note is that a good deal of evidence seems to show that monotheism was a rather late development in "Israelite" history, and that universal worship of YHWH didn't start until the Babylonian exile. It should also be noted that "Israelite" is a modern term, and may not have even been an identifiable ethnic group during what we consider the Biblical period.
If you want to see what an OT professor and former classmate of mine has to say on some of these matters, you might want to poke around on Higgaion. Not sure if I trust him, though. He switched to 4e.
|
|
I re-read some quotes from E. Gary Gygax recently, and am further convinced of 4e's departure from any semblance of our game, Dungeons & Dragons. Its not a point of argument, so much as fact, to indicate that 4e's extreme focus on combat and card-like widgit powers in combat is a mere slice, a fading shadow, a fragment of what the game in whole truly is.
By contrast - I've looked that the PAIZO Gamemastery Guide recently, and see IN THERE the sum and substance of our game, Gary's game, Dave's game, Roger's game, Monte's game, Eric's game, Pax's game.
I'm now, more convinced than ever, that 4e's profound rejection of the Gygaxian motifs and mileau is both its own inherent flaw, and the final mistake in a long string of errors and mis-steps by wotci and the Hasbros. The mechanization of the game for function over form, and re-design in this so-called 'edition' is an extreme departure from its naturalistic milieu identity AND a departure from the game itself, which has always been about the gamemaster being master of the game, and not a mere 'entertainer' nor screenjockey. The group cooperative aspect of the classes, such as the classic elements of PATHFINDER RPG, have been near eliminated in 4e. The class-based system has been bastardized tremdously in 4e. Do not mistake this plain observation as a rant; this is the palin observation that 4e suggests everyone should be identically special with heavy focus on combat & power and not need one another. Dungeons and Dragons, whether at tabletop or online, has and will always be about fellowship, community, and leveraging each other's strengths as a team. It IS about needing each other, and valuing the classes.
The naturalism of Gygax's class-based system mirrors the very best from literature, hisotory, and humanity itself.
Thank you, PAIZO, for being good stewards with the essence of our game.
I in 4e. Do not mistake this plain observation as a rant; this is the palin observation that 4e suggests everyone should be identically special with heavy focus on combat & power and not need one another. Dungeons and Dragons, whether at tabletop or online, has and will always be about fellowship, community, and leveraging each other's strengths as a team. It IS about needing each other, and valuing the classes.
Utterly, utterly wrong. Moreso than ever, 4E D&D is about teamwork, and valuing each other's strengths and not having for example, the wizard solving every problem, and the cleric as healbot.
I re-read some quotes from E. Gary Gygax recently, and am further convinced of 4e's departure from any semblance of our game, Dungeons & Dragons. Its not a point of argument, so much as fact, to indicate that 4e's extreme focus on combat and card-like widgit powers in combat is a mere slice, a fading shadow, a fragment of what the game in whole truly is.
By contrast - I've looked that the PAIZO Gamemastery Guide recently, and see IN THERE the sum and substance of our game, Gary's game, Dave's game, Roger's game, Monte's game, Eric's game, Pax's game.
I'm now, more convinced than ever, that 4e's profound rejection of the Gygaxian motifs and mileau is both its own inherent flaw, and the final mistake in a long string of errors and mis-steps by wotci and the Hasbros. The mechanization of the game for function over form, and re-design in this so-called 'edition' is an extreme departure from its naturalistic milieu identity AND a departure from the game itself, which has always been about the gamemaster being master of the game, and not a mere 'entertainer' nor screenjockey. The group cooperative aspect of the classes, such as the classic elements of PATHFINDER RPG, have been near eliminated in 4e. The class-based system has been bastardized tremdously in 4e. Do not mistake this plain observation as a rant; this is the palin observation that 4e suggests everyone should be identically special with heavy focus on combat & power and not need one another. Dungeons and Dragons, whether at tabletop or online, has and will always be about fellowship, community, and leveraging each other's strengths as a team. It IS about needing each other, and valuing the classes.
The naturalism of Gygax's class-based system mirrors the very best from literature, hisotory, and humanity itself.
Thank you, PAIZO, for being good stewards with the essence of our game.
Reporting as ordered!
The group cooperative aspect of the classes...
This element within RPGs is basically gamist as is any element in an RPG that attempts to maintain something somewhat artificial like balance within classes or the need for one class to depend on another class.
4E takes this element of gamism and ramps it up to some degree so that balance within the classes is seen as one of the most important elements of the game and attempts are made to rigorously maintain that balance.
In the same vein dependence upon other classes has generally been ramped up. Fundamentally this is mainly done with the power system in 4E. Since powers are specific to classes its very easy to use gamism to control what a class can and cannot do. For example its essentially impossible for a cleric to deal out as much damage as a striker on a regular basis, the only cleric powers that deal out really good damage are the daily powers, the more standard encounter and at will powers simply don't come with the same kind of punch as a character that fills the striker role gets and this is clearly by design since clerics have other abilities that they can do to help their fellow party members during a round.
Hence, while its perfectly possible to label the character interaction elements of 4E as gamist, and likely even more gamist then traditional D&D, its not accurate to declare that the co-operative elements of the game have been removed, in fact they've generally been ramped up using the designers control of what powers each class has access to as the tool to insure this.
Its possible to not notice this to much at the lowest level since very low level characters don't have many powers and the few they have are pretty vanilla compared to later powers but its quite clear as one moves into higher levels where every class gets a plethora of powers and the design elements that make a fighter 'sticky' or a rogue deal a lot of damage are clear within each power.
This kind of extreme might be best seen when comparing something like a fighter to a rogue. Its possible, for about the first third of the game, to keep fighters doing close to the same amount of damage as a rogue each round, but this ceases to be true from paragon tier on, there no longer is any kind of a reasonable rogue design that does not, on average, deal more damage on a round for round basis then the fighter...a lot more. Rogues fit into the striker role and that role, by gamist design, puts out more damage then the defender role that the fighter falls into.
Gygax didn't like 3rd edition, ergo Gygax wouldn't have liked PF. Thems the breaks kids.
|
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
Straight out of the mouth (allegedly) of Gygax himself.
If you prefer your dungeon ecology to make more sense, craft an explanation. The naturalism of the mechanics, I suppose, is another issue - but it does follow it's own rules, if not the rules created before, and I feel that 4e does address the issues of certain classes (I'm looking at you, full casters) getting completely unbeatable at high enough levels.
I'm not an old gamer - I started with 3.0, and I own my own 4e books. 4e can be the same colorful adventure that any of the other editions. The accessibility of the rules of 4e for new players was what convinced me to buy and dm 4e for a group of relatively inexperienced friends. We had villains. We had daring rescues. When a friend took over DMing, I carried a half-giant traitor's head in my ranger's bag because I succeeded in a knowledge roll that told me we could probably get a bounty.
The important things aren't the skin and bones - i.e. the system. The important thing is that the players are open to surprises for the sake of storytelling, and that the DM is twice as open to bend the rules for a great story. The game mechanics, the creatures, are tools for that, but the real power is in your imagination.
...Christ, I sound like a total New-Age imagni-cultist.
|
|
Look, all I can say to that is that if you're getting hit by some ripped metal-clad knight's mace, you're gonna fly around. If he grabs you with a gauntlet and throws you, you're gonna go where he throws you.
I think there is a certain sensationalism of effects in 4e. I also think there is a certain crippling hyper-realism to the overdetailing in PF and 3.x. I do own both player's handbooks, both bestiaries, and hell, I'm probably going to own both Gamemaster guides before too much longer. And they are all competing for space on my floor and for my time.
The rules you use doesn't determine how fun a game is half the time, it's what you bring to the table. I'm currently involved in a 4e conversion of Kingmaker that is phenomenally done, reskinned so that all of our 4e powers and abilities make sense in a Wild West world where my invoker carries a rifle instead of just casting his spells like any other invoker. I'm also playing a PF game where my ranger/cleric is a former military man with a penchant for over-the-top camraderie and hearty boisterous back-slapping. None of these quirks are covered by the rules, but honestly, they're the most fun parts of the game. No one's going to remember an individual crit unless it happens to be either expertly timed or evocatively described. I love both systems in different ways, but neither system is why I enjoy roleplaying.
<SNIP>The important things aren't the skin and bones - i.e. the system. The important thing is that the players are open to surprises for the sake of storytelling, and that the DM is twice as open to bend the rules for a great story. The game mechanics, the creatures, are tools for that, but the real power is in your imagination.</SNIP>
BLASPHEMY!
|
|
There is a rather enormous leap from "a particular section or passage is historically accurate, or at least plausible" vs. "the entire Bible, from cover to cover, must therefore be inerrant."
I'm sorry, I thought it would be clear to the reader that when I said "Bible" I did not mean the whole thing "from cover to cover" when I used only an example or two...
I'll refrain from discussing religion within this thread any further (as this is clearly not the correct place for that)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
<SNIP>The important things aren't the skin and bones - i.e. the system. The important thing is that the players are open to surprises for the sake of storytelling, and that the DM is twice as open to bend the rules for a great story. The game mechanics, the creatures, are tools for that, but the real power is in your imagination.</SNIP>BLASPHEMY!
;) I really do prefer the term 'cheeky.'
Gygax didn't like 3rd edition, ergo Gygax wouldn't have liked PF. Thems the breaks kids.But he did like Castles & Crusades, which is (pretty much) 3e without the specific skills and feats (yeah okay, there's a little more to it than that, but in a nut-shell there it is)...
My reading on his comments regarding Castles & Crusades was not so much like, as grudging acceptance that this was at least closer to 'real' D&D. I don't recall him saying anything actually positive about Castles & Crusades, he seemed to come across as finding it just less negative then core 3.5.
So, you're saying we should rename this thread. Could a Paizo staff member please title this thread "3.x's Rejection Of Gygaxian Naturalism"?
Thanks!
Better yet... the Myth of Gygaxian Naturalism... the philosophy that never existed.So, you're saying we should rename this thread. Could a Paizo staff member please title this thread "3.x's Rejection Of Gygaxian Naturalism"?
Thanks!
Or "Gygax's Rejection of 3.x's Naturalism".
Or "Gygax's Rejection of 3.x's Naturalism".Better yet... the Myth of Gygaxian Naturalism... the philosophy that never existed.So, you're saying we should rename this thread. Could a Paizo staff member please title this thread "3.x's Rejection Of Gygaxian Naturalism"?
Thanks!
Maybe "Gygax's Rejection of Naturalism"?
Or more adequately, "Gygax's rejection of what other people did to "his" game-ism"?
::Fumigates thread::
i agree with LazarX
To each their own, enjoy the game you are playing. God rest his soul, I am grateful for Gary Gygax and those that followed to make the hobby what it is today.
I agree with getting this thread back on the track of its original discussion, which many people put many hours of thinking and good posting into. Whatever the infelicity or only partially indicative nature of the title, it's clear enough if you read the essay that inspired it and the first few pages. If it's not your cup of tea, start another thread in some appropriate location.
There's been a lot of off-topic posting in this thread and I wish folks would respect the thread's original, if imperfect, integrity.
Well technically, the 4E focus may be defining combat powers, but it does not stop there. And there is a huge bias to get over from previous editions. If you don't like 4E by any definition that is fine. I still appreciate each game I play, as they all offer a different perspective.
I believe 4e could improve, to flesh out rituals, professions, crafting, etc.
The only crux I have is people who go out or their way with theories, and related material, to state a certain approach is totally wrong. However, I will accept my opinions, likes or dislikes, may not be shared by others. And I will respect other peoples opinions.
So enjoy.
I'd rather just explore the concepts and mechanics related to Gygaxian Naturalism and only treat editions as they are germane to that. If something, like, say disassociated mechanics are germane to that, then fine. Otherwise...
This is a good thread that I wish the Edition Wars could stay clear of. Its funny the thread gets necro'ed in the 3.x side of the forum and the 4e fans crawl out of the lower planes to defend their true love.
So if ya don't like Pax and his topics, seeing how he's the OP stay out of the thread. Pax has made it very clear he's not a 4e fan he like the Anti-Scott Betts of the Forum.
1e AD&D, I've never had a problem with the wild claims of unbalance in the party.
I never saw it. As each class had its own exp chart to worry about and its own money sinks, ie Spell components, Guild dues, Tithes and taxes, Weapon and Armor replacement....LOVE me a Rust Monster. I just never saw rambant unbalance.
Maybe I play a little differently than some folks, I dont know. Now dont get me wrong I dont lord over the PCs but come on if you cant control the situations trown at you by a PC why the Hades are you a GM?
Eric
1e AD&D, I've never had a problem with the wild claims of unbalance in the party.
I never saw it. As each class had its own exp chart to worry about and its own money sinks, ie Spell components, Guild dues, Tithes and taxes, Weapon and Armor replacement....LOVE me a Rust Monster. I just never saw rambant unbalance.
Maybe I play a little differently than some folks, I dont know. Now dont get me wrong I dont lord over the PCs but come on if you cant control the situations trown at you by a PC why the Hades are you a GM?
Eric
I agree, I dare say I like a little imbalance, it helps the believability of the characters being unique entities, to a certain extent, of course(I try to keep the players within at most 3 levels of each other). When everyone is unique, everyone has their own sets of strengths and weaknesses, and the story can shift and move around all these facets.
The numbers players throw at me never really give me much trouble,I always find a way around them and come up with a challenge, without wiping out the party. It's out-of-game stuff that messes me up. For example, I have a player whom rolls up characters who treat adventuring like it's slave labor, and I have to convince his characters to do anything remotely close to an actual adventure. I had an old thread about it somewhere... Anyway, it's gotten so bad, the other players are even jumping on him about it.
I'd rather just explore the concepts and mechanics related to Gygaxian Naturalism and only treat editions as they are germane to that. If something, like, say disassociated mechanics are germane to that, then fine. Otherwise...
... Smurf? I think Smurf.
Holy geez, I've been downing this thread like a bag of devouring on an after diet binge. Finally finished reading all 1100+ posts and am eager to input on this very enlightened and informative discussion.
First I would like to acknowledge all the major players (that stood out most in my mind) during this thread as having very useful input.
TY Pax, Mair, Pres, Jeremy, JRM, Stefan, DE, Cf, HD and Miphon. I definitely don't agree with everyone of you (mostly the 4e isnt D&D crowd) but all the input was very well received, even Pres, who some might have taken as curt and attacking, said many a thing I agree with even if not in the way he tried to make his point.
Coming late to the thread hurts, as I feel most of the discussion has passed. Regardless, I feel I have a lot to say and have spent the last few days reading to be able to appropriately add something of value.
1st) A (not so brief) Brief History
I began playing D&D in middle school with 1st and red box and consumed all the material I could find. The downside was I didn't have a DM to mentor me, an older friend that had played since the beginning. 2nd came out soon after and offered some explanation in the rule books that didn't seem clear in the beginning. Amongst my friends I always ran the games since I was the one who had read the books cover to cover (multiple times) and knew most of the core information by heart. Because I was never taught the game, I had only one thing to rely on, the rules. I have always been described by my friends as Lawful Lawful Neutral (with good tendencies). There were always rules that made sense and those that I felt didn't, but as the game even said, it was my game and I could change those as I saw fit. I have always run homebrew (nothing against any published worlds, but those were someone elses' worlds and followed their rules, my world followed mine). When 3rd came out I was among the vocal against it, but it was D&D, and I loved all things D&D (even when I don't agree with them) so I would give it a fair chance. I found that a lot of the new rules were rules I had already used of my own creation. As always I consumed all that I could find. Some things just didn't fit (monks never fit, as my world had no Asian culture). There were now rules galore, I had my fill of rules and then some, went back for seconds, circled the table buffet style then over-indulged in a horde of rules to handle almost any situation I could imagine. Over time I realized these just made me fat and slow, every action had a bunch of references that needed to be attached. There's always the "just add a situational modifier", but I'm not random, I'm LLN. If there was a rule, I'll find it and use it, if I don't agree I'll change it.. officially and inform all the players of the new state of things. Soooo, 4th appears and again I rally against the intruder into my happy world, but all things D&D must be given the benefit of the doubt and consumed. Lo and behold, they took all those rules in 3rd that answered my queries, and compact them into a simple easily digestible format. But there seemed to be one major complaint from the others' POV, "They took the Role-playing out of the game". Here's where I get into the topic of this thread.
2nd) Naturalism
As I see it, the thread with a very interesting discussion on Naturalism (Gygaxian to be exact). As I saw the arguments for it I see it as simply enough My world lives and breathes, but not because the PC's are in it. Instead the PC's live and breathe, because they are in my world. . Now this may go back into the GNS discussion, but I think all worlds need a balance of all 3 to be natural. Players may come and go, but when they come to my table, they enter a world that has existed longer than some of them have gamed. Now I'm not saying I don't meet the needs of the player as I see fit, let them drive the story, let them be the center of all that's happening, and all they do impacts my world for whomsoever may visit my world after them.
3rd) Rejection of said Naturalism
Now here's where I discuss what is really on my mind (yes the rest was just build-up, I ramble). I think of Gygax/Arneson much the same I think of Tolkien, I am ever grateful for what they brought to this world, or in the latter what they did for the fantasy genre. I am not, however, a fan of how they did it. I've read the LOTR and Hobbitt (loved the cartoon as a kid before I ever heard of either D&D or LOTR), but I can't stand the way Tolkien writes, to me he was not an engaging storyteller. He created a wonderful world, which is why his books to me read like an encyclopedia. Same for Gygax/Arneson I love what they started and would never give up the 20+ years I have spent playing, but I couldn't stand how the Gygax rules/adventures/source material played out, there seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of it. Maybe no reason was the reason, it was not made clear to me, nor had I divined this hidden secret/easter egg of his world. Does that mean that I lack naturalism? Does it mean 4e lacks it? No it just means me and others like me just disagree with how he achieved his form of naturalism. Truth be told the only thing that has Gygaxian Naturalism, was what Gygax contributed. Sadly, however the statement has denegrated to the point of 1,2,3 is better for reason x.
4th) Noone has taken away your role-playing
I was in the Army 12 years, and we had Manuals and Regulations galore on how to be a soldier, does reading all of those make anyone a good soldier? No it only makes them know what is expected, it takes the wizened Sgt to take the troop under his wing and mold him into the true soldier. The same can be said for Role-playing, it doesn't only exist in any given edition because it was written in the rules how to do it. It is our job as older gamers to teach all new players how to not only use the rules as written but how to follow the unwritten rules on being truly in character. I may be a rules lawyer to the teeth, but you ask anyone I've played with and they will surely agree I'm a consumate role-player at heart. It is ok to have a book of clear-cut rules with no regard to how role-playing is achieved, mainly because no book can truly teach it. I love to teach new players to play D&D, I take anyone I can find into the fold (my 9 yr old loves it). I use the rules as I see fit, mostly all as written, but what I am truly passing on, is a love of a game so great that no matter the incarnation, I will take what I like, change what I need, and discard what I don't. No matter what edition I have played, it was the personality that made my character not his numerical representation. With 4th, the rules are so clean and crisp, I can finally put them where they belong, as a mathmatical method to adjudicate situations that use statistical probability, all the while adding my own verbage to the whole event so that the numbers are nigh invisible. I liked 3rd it had innumerable choices, moreso than 4th, but I would rather give character to my choices, than just give more choices to my character.
Troy: You're my new pal. I have more to say in response, but I'll have to get to that later. For now, thanks for enjoying the thread and responding in kind.
For now, let me encourage you to also seek out the original essay on the blog Grognardia, if you haven't already gotten a chance to read it, and also the article on 4e and disassociated mechanics. I think both were linked in the thread, but if you have trouble finding the latter and want it, let me know and I'll try and dig up a link for you.
ADD: And personally, I feel it is auspicious that your first post was in this thread. ;-)
Afterthought,
Pax, have you read the 4th rules? Whether you intend to play it or not, it actually holds much truer to the working as a group concept than you seem to think.
It follows the core idea that every group should have one of the four archetypes to be a truly effective team.
A defender (aka Hefty McMeatshield) or Fighter in 1st
A leader (aka Orator Healypants)or Cleric in 1st
A striker (aka Blades Sneakystabbin)or Thief in 1st
A Controller (aka Caster Von Blastsalot) or Mage in 1st
and one more of any for a little extra.
Not sayin you have to like it, just don't dismiss it until you've given it a fair play. Play it with as much gusto as you can hurl at an OSRIC session. Don't taste it with the pinched face of expected disgust my kids would show to a plate of unknown vegetables. That's all I ask of anyone, for any edition, I scrunched my face, pinched my nose, and ate those green eggs and ham, for both 3rd and 4th. Woe and behold, I liked them.
Mair, I have read most all links presented in this thread over the last 3 days. The history was nice, I printed the quick primer to share with friends, and I hope to regain some of my staunch tough as nails DMing I lost playing the gimmie mores of 3rd, and always let the dice fall where they may.
First I would like to acknowledge all the major players (that stood out most in my mind) during this thread as having very useful input.
TY Pax, Mair, Pres, Jeremy, JRM, Stefan, DE, Cf, HD and Miphon. I definitely don't agree with everyone of you (mostly the 4e isnt D&D crowd) but all the input was very well received, even Pres, who some might have taken as curt and attacking, said many a thing I agree with even if not in the way he tried to make his point.
Ah, shucks, you are making me blush.
Welcome and good luck.
|
|
First I would like to acknowledge all the major players (that stood out most in my mind) during this thread as having very useful input.
Welcome to the boards!
Pax and I agree on most things concerning 4e...
After sparring several times with many of the prominent 4e players here on the boards (mostly during the "Edition Wars"), one thing I have learned is that for every reason I have for not liking 4e, there are those ready to point out to me that my reason is "misguided" (but I don't care what anybody says, I just don't like the disassociated mechanics that are within 4e)...
Another thing I brought back with me from the Edition Wars; talking negatively about 4e is a lot like religion and politics, you just don't discuss these things in "polite" company...
;-)
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I never considered that the PCs needed to be balance, only the Party as a whole needed to be balanced. This of course is a 1e idea.
Im a 1e fan, and only realized that till after the much lauded "Edition Wars", it seems the best thing born from 4e is the OSR movement.
Sure I see issue with 3.X it just boggles the mind that none of the 4e Avengers have not one problem with 4e, its just the perfect game. Period. And the House rules dont mean that 4e is "broke" its just that they like their house rules, not that 4e needs House rules, because 4e is Perfect.
It is so refreshing that all the PF fans never fall into those traps. :P
TY Pres, for your preemptive well-wishes
DE, I am not intending to speak negatively of any of it, as I said I love D&D in all it's incarnations (whether some agree if it deserves the label or not). I don't consider it a revisit to the edition wars, as I am not attacking. Like politics and religion as long as I make clear that I believe no one is right or wrong, just purely entitled to their beliefs then there should be no offense taken and discussion can commence between open-minded adults sharing what their beliefs tend to be, and why they hold firm to them.
OSG, this is where you and I disagree, I believe balance need exist along all lines within a game (see above alignment LLN). Since, although, life is not fair and balanced, there is no reason that we cannot produce it in our games. No other game starts out by saying "If you're the shoe, then you get 1 less turn every 4". Let the rules be balanced, and let the fickle hand of fate's touch on the ill-fated die roll be the judge of where and when to throw balance to the wind. What decisions the characters make also disrupts balance enough that it need not be built into the system too.
I have a LARGE number of complaints about 4E, things they over-simplified, things they dropped altogether, things they didn't add. For my money, however, I have far fewer major complaints about the system than I had with any other. To me it just plays smoother. I'm not trying to get anyone to change what they play or how, just to approach it with a fair-minded look at the old college try with the game before dismissing it based on other peoples issues with it. If you have, then by all means let me hear all your issues with the experiences you had, and it will help me make my game better for others. If you have not, I just ask that people not say they hate something they've never tried with an open mind. I've played many game systems, outside of my genre/style preference, and I went into them with the idea of how can I make the most of this, and overall I keep coming back to D&D (in any form). Doesn't mean I didn't at least give it a shot.
EDIT: The only point I'm trying to make, is people need to stop blaming the game if there is a lack of Naturalism (purpose of the thread after all), and look into what isn't being/wasn't done to use the same naturalism they always had in whichever game they play.
It is so refreshing that all the PF fans never fall into those traps. :P
Yeah, like I said I have some issue with 3.x, Im starting to think I dont like high end play, of course in never really did.
I dont like the need to multiclass, although it seems PF may have solved this.
I never really like the idea of a prestige class, I would have rather something more akin to kits from 2e to simulate the prestige class.
I dont like the elaborate monster stats.
You know I have issue with alot of the games I enjoy.
|
|
DE, I am not intending to speak negatively of any of it, as I said I love D&D in all it's incarnations (whether some agree if it deserves the label or not).
Please, it was not my intent to imply that you were speaking negatively of anything...
I was just writing a little of my experiences and I welcome the debate and the exchange of open-minded ideas...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Actually both are true. Because without the PC's you're simply just talking to yourself.2nd) Naturalism
As I see it, the thread with a very interesting discussion on Naturalism (Gygaxian to be exact). As I saw the arguments for it I see it as simply enough My world lives and breathes, but not because the PC's are in it. Instead the PC's live and breathe, because they are in my world. .
I like that Laz. It flows so much better. Basically "Both the world and the PC's live and breathe, because of the symbiotic relationship that they share with one another within the game". Without one or the other, neither survive.
I also agree with the evolutionist ideal of the game. Take 3 different games, Chess, Basketball, and Charades (one intellectual, one physical and one improvisational). Is if reasonable to believe that no one can possibly play these games better than the person who created them?
Gygax and Arneson created a game, who's to say that they were good or bad at playing it, other than those that played it with them? I could create a sport, and explain how it should be played, it doesn't mean that I automatically have the hand-eye coordination to be better than anyone else who plays. I'm not saying I don't have great respect for them, just that making a game doesn't automatically make you the best at it.
First I would like to acknowledge all the major players (that stood out most in my mind) during this thread as having very useful input.
TY Pax, Mair, Pres, Jeremy, JRM, Stefan, DE, Cf, HD and Miphon. I definitely don't agree with everyone of you (mostly the 4e isnt D&D crowd) but all the input was very well received, even Pres, who some might have taken as curt and attacking, said many a thing I agree with even if not in the way he tried to make his point.
Thanks for the kind words.
Coming late to the thread hurts, as I feel most of the discussion has passed. Regardless, I feel I have a lot to say and have spent the last few days reading to be able to appropriately add something of value.
Sadly I think your correct in that, by and large, the main issues have been hashed out. Enough has already been done that any contributor could get a basic understanding of what Gygaxian Naturalism is/was and make an informed choice on if that is for them and why or why not.
2nd) Naturalism
As I see it, the thread with a very interesting discussion on Naturalism (Gygaxian to be exact). As I saw the arguments for it I see it as simply enough My world lives and breathes, but not because the PC's are in it. Instead the PC's live and breathe, because they are in my world. . Now this may go back into the GNS discussion, but I think all worlds need a balance of all 3 to be natural. Players may come and go, but when they come to my table, they enter a world that has existed longer than some of them have gamed. Now I'm not saying I don't meet the needs of the player as I see fit, let them drive the story, let them be the center of all that's happening, and all they do impacts my world for whomsoever may visit my world after them.
I agree that we need all three to be natural, and in fact I agree that GNS theory is a pretty weak tool to use to evaluate this sort of thing but it appears to be the only tool at hand.
Certainly their is some kind of differences between the way various people play the game and what they seem to emphasize in it. It strikes me as simply untrue to say that 4E is as 'simulationist' as 3.5. There is a difference both 3.5 and 4E require some amount of simulationism to work as a frame work for a long term campaign of sword and sorcery adventuring. 4E uses less (about the same quantity as we saw in 2nd Edition - in fact 2nd and 4th share a lot of strong philosophical commonalities). Even within systems there is a fair amount of variance. I both play and DM a 4E game with the only common player being myself. The game I run is significantly more influenced by Gygaxian Naturalism then the game I am a player in, to a great degree probably because I am intimately versed in D&D from 1st edition while my DM is not.
For now, let me encourage you to also seek out the original essay on the blog Grognardia, if you haven't already gotten a chance to read it, and also the article on 4e and disassociated mechanics. I think both were linked in the thread, but if you have trouble finding the latter and want it, let me know and I'll try and dig up a link for you.
Regarding 4e and disassociated mechanics.
Of course it does not really work like that. The author of the piece pretty much makes it clear why it can't - treating everything as 'house rules' would leave current 4E players and DMs dealing with such a massive number of 'house rules' that it'd be impossible to play.
First off dissociated mechanics themselves are not really the problem. More fundamentally the problem comes down to dissonance (and here I'm putting a label on that event in the game that makes some of the players stop and go "WTF...that makes no sense!"), which can be the result of dissociated mechanics but that is probably only the minority of the cases at least initially when one starts playing. More often one gets that feeling whenever they play the game and things don't function 'as they should'. Probably a lot of 3rd edition players experienced this when they first encountered Darkvision...I mean everyone was used to infravision and now it had been replaced by black and white TV vision.
That said the most extreme cases of dissonance in 3rd almost certainly came from the skill system. People still have issues with how to handle checks like this especially in regards to diplomacy and traps.
Its worth noting that, in general, people got over their issues with dissonance in regards to 3.5 and pretty much the same deal took place in 4E. Still, initially, its more likely that something explainable like the clerics Lance of Faith Power causing more dissonance then issues with the marking mechanic. This despite the fact that the idea that a cleric can use magic to create a divine beam that hurts baddies (especially good against undead) is actually well within the frame work of any edition of D&D - whats new here is that 1st level clerics could do that sort of thing - and that causes dissonance.
In actually looking at the examples at hand - there are a handful of 4E powers that really do cause one to say 'that's whacked' but most don't hence it simply does not come up all that often. Its worth noting that, for the monsters, the players just don't really know from what source any given opposition is getting powers X or Y so its nearly never necessary to explain monster powers. If the existence of monster X (who is hidden) is causing players to suffer a penalty to defenses then the DM rarely has to explain the details of what is going on - its simply a case of "something's not right about this place, there is something attacking your mind, slowing you down...you take a -2 to all defenses." The players will be actually filling in any gaps here - whatever conclusions they are jumping too covers any dissonance that might potentially result.
Almost any other use of the powers is covered in a manner very similar to a 3.5 skill check, first you work out what happens and then you explain it. So, for example, a Rogue has a power that lets him switch places with an opponent, in the case of a humanoid it probably looks like a basketball move where you slide around an opponent, with a Dragon that can't work - but you could slide between their legs.
Note how similar this is to a skill check - "I search for secret passages on the wall' [roll...a 3] "I prod at the wall, pushing at bricks, but none of them seem to move."
Something like the marking example is even less likely to actually cause dissonance. Its a case of reading the rules causing more dissonance then actually playing with the rules. Simply put if the Paladin says "I mark the Goblin Torch Thrower." and the Fighter plans to do so the Fighters player steps in and says "No, don't do that, I'll mark him and you spend the minor healing our Druid." At which point the Paladin changes his action. Alternatively if circumstances have changed so that the Paladin had marked the character but now the players need the Fighter to mark the enemy because the Paladin needs to break contact to heal the Druid then its easily explained as the Paladin beginning to break contact while the Fighter moves up to keep the enemy pinned. It'd be an extremely rare circumstance where the Fighter player and the Paladin player where wasting actions marking an enemy because they could not agree and if that is happening then you have some kind of a greater dispute brewing between the Fighter and Paladin players - something that is coming to a head and in game dissonance is not whats distracting the table - the fact that these two players refuse to cooperate and are willfully stepping on each others toes is going to be what is causing the game to break down.
In sum the issue with dissociated mechanics is actually dissonance and, while dissociated mechanics can cause dissonance its actually usually the unfamiliar that creates the effect at the table. By the time one is comfortable enough with the new mechanics to not be effected by dissonance from unfamiliar they have also, in general, dealt with dissociated mechanics.
My dissonance with 4e is stuff like, "I hit you and one of your friends automatically slides five feet to his left, and everyone heals 8 hp, and we all sing Kumbaya for two turns until you use a daily power to make me skip five squares diagonally, spin around, and then move one space to the right." I can't get my head around that stuff. Then again, I never used miniatures in any previous edition, so that might be 90% of the problem right there.
|
Gygaxian Naturalism is about Symbiosis (A relationship that may or may not be of benifit to all parties).
Shriekers associate with pretty much any species capable of understanding that they give off a Sound when anything aproaches (usually Prey but also Predators) - Otherwise dormant predators hanging from the Roof of the Cave, Intelligent Creatures who know the value of an Alarm, Species looking for something to devour their Bodily Waste might decide that the Mushrooms will eat their poop and turn it into New Mushrooms - Thus reducing the Ammonia levels in a Cave network.
Not all relationships are that obvious - A Rust monster produces lots of metalic oxides as as food which might be of interest to some species capable of devouring that and using them.