Lemme try again, I sounded like a jerk in my last post. You're playing DnD. As long as you're having fun, you're playing it right. We are discussing the differences in editions and how newer editions seem to pull away from the games' roots. If you took this as "You are wrong! You're not playing right!" maybe you're reading too much into this. It's your money, your time, your game. Play as you enjoy. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.
|
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.
It is foundational because the ideas within those books were used to lay the very foundation of the game itself...
You do not need to know who or what inspired Gygax (and Arneson) to enjoy D&D, but without that inspiration (no matter what the source was, but they were kind enough to let us know if we so chose to care), D&D as we know it would not exist...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
But where in 1st - 3rd edition I could re-imagine the combat as film scenes, I play 4th edition combat like a board game.
And that's where I see the Gygaxian sensibility of in-game explanations related to the world around the characters. The fundamentals of the game, as related to the fantasy genre should include reasonable ties to family life, culture, society, etc. If someone can split a tree with an attack, does that give a barkeep an advantage when stopping a fight in the bar?
If the rules just follow the formula:
KEWL POWR+KEWL NAME+ #USES = KEWL MASH UP POWR NAME & #USES
...then where's the tie to the fantasy milieu? IMHO, this makes 4e neither fantasy nor d&d. Kinda like one big misnomer!
Is 4e just a "fantasy widget mash up combat board game called d&d, with other undefined areas for those who want to play 1e-3e in the space between combats?"
Crissake already - they've created a game that isn't d&d, called it d&d, and are now trying to persuade everyone that it is. You can put lip-stick on a pig, but its still a pig.
|
I think the line of thinking that has inspired this thread has some pitfalls.
The only way to maintain the "original feel" of the early editions of the game (call it Gygaxian Naturalism if you will) is for the game not to evolve in any substantial way. It could be supported with the occasional adventure, etc, but that would be about it.
Here is why. If the game is going to be supported in any large-scale fashion, it's going to take a lot of people - a lot of designers with different backgrounds and different ideas. That is what we have. However, those designers are not always going to be in agreement with the original game designers from the late 1970s. The game is going to change. Period. And any change is by definition a divergence from the game's foundations.
Put simply, no edition of the game is going to be more Gygaxian than the one that Gygax wrote. Debating that point is foolish. We have to concede that all subsequent editions are less "Gygaxian".
Based on that supposition, the only way to truly uphold those Gygaxian ideals is to play those early editions, and for the game to cease its evolution. I think that would be bad for the hobby, because the hobby is constantly rejuvenated by the fresh ideas and developments done by companies like Paizo and WotC.
I think if people want to debate the merits of 4e vs 3.5 vs Pathfinder vs 1e, then fair enough, although it's entirely a matter of opinion, and is unlikely to change anyone's mind. But to suggest that an edition (4e for example) is inferior because it fails a test of Gygaxian Naturalism is, in effect, saying that 4e is bad because it is less Gygaxian than the edition that Gygax wrote.
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.
If your claim is that knowledge of the source material isn't necessary to play the game, I agree completely.
But if you're claiming the original game wasn't founded on it, you're just flat-out wrong:D&D's "Fire and Forget" magic is from Vance, not the other way around.
D&D's halflings are from Tolkien's hobbits, not the other way around.
D&D's regenerating troll and paladin class are taken as-are from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, not the other way around.
AD&D psionics modelled those in Sterling Lanier's Hiero's Journey, not the other way around.
Etc., etc.
Do I really need to cite dates? Or quote Gygax saying, "Look, this is where we got all our ideas from!" ? There is nothing circular here, until D&D was around long enough to influence later literature (none of which is under discussion). We're talking about the sources that Gygax and Arneson borrowed, robbed, and stole from to establish the benchmarks of the game.
|
|
I think the line of thinking that has inspired this thread has some pitfalls.
The only way to maintain the "original feel" of the early editions of the game (call it Gygaxian Naturalism if you will) is for the game not to evolve in any substantial way. It could be supported with the occasional adventure, etc, but that would be about it.
Here is why. If the game is going to be supported in any large-scale fashion, it's going to take a lot of people - a lot of designers with different backgrounds and different ideas. That is what we have. However, those designers are not always going to be in agreement with the original game designers from the late 1970s. The game is going to change. Period. And any change is by definition a divergence from the game's foundations.
Put simply, no edition of the game is going to be more Gygaxian than the one that Gygax wrote. Debating that point is foolish. We have to concede that all subsequent editions are less "Gygaxian".
Based on that supposition, the only way to truly uphold those Gygaxian ideals is to play those early editions, and for the game to cease its evolution. I think that would be bad for the hobby, because the hobby is constantly rejuvenated by the fresh ideas and developments done by companies like Paizo and WotC.
I think if people want to debate the merits of 4e vs 3.5 vs Pathfinder vs 1e, then fair enough, although it's entirely a matter of opinion, and is unlikely to change anyone's mind. But to suggest that an edition (4e for example) is inferior because it fails a test of Gygaxian Naturalism is, in effect, saying that 4e is bad because it is less Gygaxian than the edition that Gygax wrote.
D&D's halflings are from Tolkien's hobbits, not the other way around.
What?? Any resemblence between D&D halflings and hobbits is purely coincidental. Why, I heard Gary Gygax say so himself!
:-P :-P :-P
Put simply, no edition of the game is going to be more Gygaxian than the one that Gygax wrote. Debating that point is foolish. We have to concede that all subsequent editions are less "Gygaxian". I think if people want to debate the merits of 4e vs 3.5 vs Pathfinder then fair enough, although it's entirely a matter of opinion, and is unlikely to change anyone's mind.
I agree with you on all counts. 3rd edition seems just about as far from the foundations to me as 4th edition. However, I think it's safe to say that 3e and 4e wouldn't have existed without 1e, and that 1e certainly wouldn't have existed in the way we see it unless the literary source material did. That's what I mean by "foundational." You can easily live on the top floor (or the middle floor) of a high-rise without ever venturing into the basement, but that doesn't mean there's no slab for the structure to rest on.
Some might consider others views to be, Discussion = Echo Chamber, non-Echo Chamber = whinny kids complaining.
Compare the powers in 4e with the idea of a wizard not being able to cast a spell again in any earlier edition. Logical falls by the wayside in any case.
|
Some might consider others views to be, Discussion = Echo Chamber, non-Echo Chamber = whinny kids complaining.
Compare the powers in 4e with the idea of a wizard not being able to cast a spell again in any earlier edition. Logical falls by the wayside in any case.
Wrong comparison: Compare fighter's powers with a fighter not being able to swi...wait a second, fighters never ran out of their shtick....
Wrong comparison: Compare fighter's powers with a fighter not being able to swi...wait a second, fighters never ran out of their shtick....Some might consider others views to be, Discussion = Echo Chamber, non-Echo Chamber = whinny kids complaining.
Compare the powers in 4e with the idea of a wizard not being able to cast a spell again in any earlier edition. Logical falls by the wayside in any case.
Nothing is stopping the ranger from shooting all day long in 4e either. But successfully getting off a bad ass move? Sure that shouldn't be something that can be done willy-nilly, otherwise it isn't so bad ass.
Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...
So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
|
|
Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.
Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
So, because a basketball player once in a while can toss a ball from one end of the court to the other and make a goal, it is logical to assume he should be able to do that every single time he tries? As I said, it depends on what kind of assumptions we are making.
|
|
So, because a basketball player once in a while can toss a ball from one end of the court to the other and make a goal, it is logical to assume he should be able to do that every single time he tries? As I said, it depends on what kind of assumptions we are making.Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
Again, using that logic, it shouldn't be called a "daily" power, it should be called a "once or twice in a career" power...
So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
The more I think about it, the less I have an issue with the ranger doing it once, then stopping and saying "Woah! I can't believe that worked! I'll never be able to pull that off again!" And his confidence level won't allow him to try again until he's gotten a night's sleep and is all bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and full of piss and vinegar again the next day. That could work for me just as well as any of the other wonky nonsense mechanics that pop up in all editions.
So, because a basketball player once in a while can toss a ball from one end of the court to the other and make a goal, it is logical to assume he should be able to do that every single time he tries?
That specific example seems like a high-DC issue to me, though, not a "per day" issue. No basketball player in the world can pick one throw like that each game, or each day, or whatever, and know in advance he's guaranteed to make it...
So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.The more I think about it, the less I have an issue with the ranger doing it once, then stopping and saying "Woah! I can't believe that worked! I'll never be able to pull that off again!" And his confidence level won't allow him to try again until he's gotten a night's sleep and is all beright-eyed, bushy-tailed, and full of piss and vinegar again the next day. That could work for me just as well as any of the other wonky nonsense mechanics that pop up in all editions.
Exactly.
Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
Rangers have an At-Will attack that lets them shoot two different targets. They can do this all day.
|
|
Rangers have an At-Will attack that lets them shoot two different targets. They can do this all day.Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
Good to know.
Another discussion down the tubes...
It was all going so well.
I play all editions of D&D happily. Yes, that includes the 4th edition. Eesh, this place is weird at times.
"It comes down to this: If you want to be in control of your character, you have to have some idea how anything you might try is going to come out. and you can't know that unless you have some idea of how the rules are going to handle the situation. If the GM is making capricious decisions about what happens in the game, you're always shooting in the dark and you have no real control over your character at all. Think of how hard it would be to, say, learn to ride a bicycle if the laws of physics were constantly in flux. The game just works better if the DM and players have similar expectations about how the rules handle things."
Wow...I posted something more or less identical in this same thread. It's good to know I'm not the only one who feels this way!
(Of course, I don't know if I'd agree with his comment about the original designers being "wrong", though.)
|
|
Rangers have an At-Will attack that lets them shoot two different targets. They can do this all day.Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.Well, if making it "bad ass" is at the expense of logic, because WotC writers couldn't write decent fluff if they tried, well, I'd rather not be "bad ass"...So shooting two different targets at the same time is the ranger's "schtick" and not just shooting? The "expense of logic" only occurs based on one's assumptions.
Hey, we have a ranger in our 4E group, and he says he can shoot two arrows, but they have to be at the same target....can you explain why you can shoot at two different targets? This could save our bacon, he's lost so many shots sending both arrows at the same guy...
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.
But pretty much none of the new generation are at all likely to do this. For good reason as well, science fiction and fantasy when taken beyond just being fun little stories, are not really about the future at all. The best of them, those that become something akin to literature, are actually about the present. These stories are not aimed at these kids, in general they are not even aimed at these kids parents, they are the stories of their grandparents youth.
While I think there is a place in the game for nods towards the classic sources from its history I don't think it can be all about that history and still be of relevance to following generations. To remain relevant the game needs to continue to incorporate the media of the generations that followed into th game play. That said both 4E and Pathfinder understand this. James introductions to the various adventures makes it clear that he often sends the module writer off to see movie X and/or Y because thats the feel he wants for the adventure.
While I think there is a place in the game for nods towards the classic sources from its history I don't think it can be all about that history and still be of relevance to following generations. To remain relevant the game needs to continue to incorporate the media of the generations that followed into the game play.
That may be. I'd still much rather play a game that was designed around the sources Gygax lists, than I would a game designed around Harry Potter and the Jason Bourne of the movies -- but that might just mean I'm a grumpy old grognard.
I certainly have no interest whatsoever in playing a 5th edition game designed around Manga, Anime, and World of Warcraft -- so if those are the sources that this new generation finds relevant, count me out for sure.
Hey, we have a ranger in our 4E group, and he says he can shoot two arrows, but they have to be at the same target....can you explain why you can shoot at two different targets? This could save our bacon, he's lost so many shots sending both arrows at the same guy...
OT reply spoilered...
(from PHB 105)
Twin Strike (Level 1 at-will attack)
Targets: one or two creatures
So he can pretty much choose whether to attack one or two creatures.
Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.
Ahh, simulationism.
I think it is a mistake to:
1. Think any edition of D&D was (or even was intended to be) a good simulation of the way the fantasy world should work, and/or
2. Assume simulation would make for a good game in the first place.
It isn't that a character is physically prevented from executing martial dailies multiple times, but that the characters aren't even away of dailies, encounters, etc. They fight as well as they can at all times, but sometimes (preferably at dramatic moments), they really do something amazing. Rules constructs don't describe the experience of the characters, but rather that of the players.
|
|
Logic would dictate that putting two arrows on a string wouldn't be any less feasible the tenth time you do it as the first time.Ahh, simulationism.
I think it is a mistake to:
1. Think any edition of D&D was (or even was intended to be) a good simulation of the way the fantasy world should work, and/or
2. Assume simulation would make for a good game in the first place.It isn't that a character is physically prevented from executing martial dailies multiple times, but that the characters aren't even away of dailies, encounters, etc. They fight as well as they can at all times, but sometimes (preferably at dramatic moments), they really do something amazing. Rules constructs don't describe the experience of the characters, but rather that of the players.
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...
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...
Of course, but those things have always been there; no edition of D&D has ever stood up to logic. For example, it is impossible (short of DM fiat) to break a bone in any edition of D&D. Why? Well, because being laid up for 6-8 weeks while it heals isn't any fun. The reality of the world (in which it is clearly possible to break bones) is divorced from the mechanics of the system (in which it isn't) in service of good game play.
4E made some different decisions as to what was an acceptable abstration. The point is that the abstractions have always been there, and "incredibly stupidly ridiculous" is in the eye of the beholder. It is unfair to claim a logical high ground, because in this case there isn't one. It's strictly a matter of preference.
Compare fighter's powers with a fighter not being able to swi...wait a second, fighters never ran out of their shtick....
Fighters never lose the ability to swing their weapon, they can make basic attacks all day, and then they're just like a 1E fighter. In 4e though, once a fight or once a day or what have you, the fighter is also able to pull off some great manuever that does a little bit better than damage. Heck, maybe the fighter is spending the whole fight trying to set up that manuever, and when you as the player say you're using that specific power, well. then he pulls it off.
...Heck, maybe the fighter is spending the whole fight trying to set up that manuever, and when you as the player say you're using that specific power, well. then he pulls it off.
Exactly. The specific why is only as good as one chooses to make it. Picking an illogical explanation (fighter "forgets" how to swing his weapon) will strain suspension of disbelief (as is to be expected). Or, in netspeak: Fail explanation is fail. :)
|
|
Now, that leads me to have more sympathy for 4th edition. I do approve of its ease-of-use and clarity of design. If only it didn't throw away the baby with the bathwater by disposing of a lot of D&D legacies that worked perfectly well I would probably have brought it. In the end, Wizards' disregard for the game's continuity and the (too me) too "gamist" approach to mechanics just turned me off. Then they started nailing down a coffin over my interest in 4th edition with their advertising, and buried it by pulling the older edition pdfs.
Oh well, so long as there's the OGL, Pathfinder and the Old-School Renaissance I'll be all right.
Was all of this said by Skip Williams?!? Or was this last part a quote from JRM? Just wondering?
Well said, regardless.
I appreciate your many responses and postive comments about this thread, JRM. Thanks for sharing those quotes from Skip.
|
|
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 :)
;) *Winks at Houstonderek's girlfriend. Makes devil horns with hand.* ;)
OZZY!!!!!!!
I've got that module and re-read it last year, so ff my memory serves me right that's not quite how it worked out.The group of adventurers you refer to did not return to their Greyhawk city base, but returned to the deep level beneath Castle Greyhawk they'd entered the Isle of the Ape's demi-plane from.
They then had to fight their way out of the Dungeon naked and unarmed.
Adventurers today get it easy, eh, compared to Mordenkainen and his crew. :P
Been a year sense I read it last but my point stands. In particular, if this actually happened in Gygax's campaign and it seems very possible that it did, then the implication is that Gygax nonchalantly stripped his players of every last magic item they had. He cleaned them out in return for allowing them to escape his island 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...
Answer #1: Is 4E more or less akin to 1E
Whether 4E is closer to 1E in feeling then 3.5 can't reasonably be answered by looking at any single mechanic. Its either some kind of a personal gut feeling or, I suppose, some how derived by taking all, or at least a large and inclusive list, of mechanics from 3.5 and 4E and comparing them to 1E in order to decide if they are closer or not.
4E includes some clearly new mechanics in the mix, The powers are a good example, it includes some mechanics that are more 1E then 3.5, the exception based design of monsters or the idea that the DM is in control of the magic items are examples of this and it includes elements that are much closer to 3.5 then 1E. The way encounters are designed to be level appropriate or the 'wealth by level' mechanism (oh and miniatures).
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...
Answer #2: The 4E power system.
When we consider this issue, especially in light of the idea of dissociated mechanics, what we are really doing is trying to decide if the mechanics damage ones sense of disbelief to the point that they make the game less attractive to play.
Now I don't think that the powers are completely defensible for every player of the game. Its possible to decide that they simply are beyond the pale being far to unrealistic. Now Its fairly possible to single out certain players and say they simply can't abide by such a system. Easy way to find such a player would be to consider action points from various versions of 3.5. If you'd never play a game that had action points because the idea is completely unrealistic then it stands to reason that the Powers system in 4E will also really irritate you - that is because, at their core, Daily Powers and Encounter Powers are pretty much action points. They are a limited resource that a player can spend to allow his or her character to do something more potent then the character can routinely do.
For 4E this aspect does not really jar all that much, its part and parcel of the kinds of media that are prevalent currently. A good example would be Logolas sliding down the stairs on a shield firing arrows as he goes in the Lord of the Rings movie. Obviously the idea that anyone would or could do that is pretty patently absurd. Hence in some types of games having abilities that emulate that sort of thing is flawed. On the other hand if ones source material does take into account modern gun-fu movies and comic books etc. then it starts to become much more reasonable.
Its also worth noting that the effects are not usually all that jaring at the actual table. First off not all powers feel quite as contrived as Split the Tree. Most are either magical in nature or seem more like something that really is difficult to pull off due to circumstance or effort or what have you. usually it seems reasonable that such a situation just does not come up all of the time. Meaning that the only really contrived part is that the player controls when his character manages to pull the exploit off (which is why they are, in effect, action points - players spend them to go above and beyond). Its also worth noting that they don't get used wily nily, as a player you pull them out when your feeling very threatened, usually when dealing with the BBEG, hence you get an effect that resembles the characters essentially rising to the occasion when really put to the test. Its not exactly simulationist feeling even under these circumstances but it is very much in line with modern movie and comic book conventions. The slow motion phenomenal action sequence is usually reserved for particularly pivotal or dire situations in modern movies.
None of this necessarily means that such mechanics will work for you but hopefully explains why it can and does work for other gamers.
So, basically he was trying to write 3rd edition so that the game was proof against bad DMs. I have some sympathy with the aims, but feel that writing a rule-set to prevent 'jerk DMs' is an impossible ambition.
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. I appreciate clear, sensible rules that remove even the appearance of fiat and make the two-way street of expectations between DM and players easier to travel. Of course the rules can't cover everything, and 3e provided decent guidelines for adjudicating in those cases, such as falling back on the default +/-2 circumstance modifier when in doubt (acknowledging some level of fiat). I don't think Skip was deluding himself into believing that any of this would compel anyone not to be a "jerk DM", but I think he had good reasons to believe it would help anyone who wanted to be a good DM avoid many of the common mistakes that lead to player dissatisfaction.
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". The point for me is that players know what to expect (within the natural limits of what they have a right to know) and the rules make sense to everyone. 3e even encouraged DMs to let players play the character they want whenever possible, to the point of swapping out an unwanted class ability for a roughly equivalent ability from another class. 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.
A Word About 4E
Now, that leads me to have more sympathy for 4th edition. I do approve of its ease-of-use and clarity of design. If only it didn't...
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? Game design involves many trade-offs, and I want a designer who appreciates the value of every aspect of the game to use good judgment when weighing the worth of one aspect against another. (It also helps tremendously when you trust the motives guiding those decisions.)
It may be that Pathfinder will even learn a few tricks from 4e to improve gameplay, and that would be fine with me as long as the game retains the essential spirit that made the original so compelling. For me, that does include the very real sense that the game continues to build on its foundation, integrating the new without discarding (or wrecking) the old. I want the game to get better and still be the game I know and love.
As an example, I'll attempt a valid critique of something that seems like the wrong solution in 4e to a real problem in 3e: monsters have too many possible actions (spells, skills, whatnot), making it hard if not overwhelming for a DM to decide what a monster is actually going to do. Here the 4e designers decided the answer is to remove options and simplify monsters (doing away with spells is part of that). Instead, this could be solved with a Sample Tactics section for each monster that would assign probabilities to a short list of actions. The advantage is that published adventures could provide different tactics than the bestiary, and even the bestiary could present a single monster with several tactics sections to choose from. There's ease-of-use if you want it and the freedom to design your own tactics from the larger list of what the monster can actually do. This is in the spirit of Gygaxian Naturalism because it preserves the notion that monsters can think outside the box and act according to their own inclination regardless of player expectation.
Naturalism suggests that monsters should get the same range of options as player characters. Here is an example of 3e improving on 1e by giving monsters ability scores, skill points, and feats. I won't claim that this is Gygaxian, since Gygax himself advocated DM fiat over rules lawyering in the interests of getting on with the fun, and I don't know what he thought of these souped-up 3e monsters. :)
I certainly have no interest whatsoever in playing a 5th edition game designed around Manga, Anime, and World of Warcraft -- so if those are the sources that this new generation finds relevant, count me out for sure.
The sad truth is, this seems to be just the way of things. I can't believe I'm actually defending 4e for once, but honestly the world is changing. Action movies, anime, etc are today's source material to draw from for fantasy gaming, it would seem. And when I saw "source material", I am referring to what the game companies had to go on for creating new product. Think about it. For most 1e and 2e players, the source material was fantasy books, because what else did you really have to draw from back in the 70's-80's? I was a kid in the 80's and I can tell you, there wasn't much else. I had to get my medieval fantasy fix from books, and the occasional film like Legend, Dragonslayer, etc.
By the time 3e came out, medieval fantasy was a little more out there and accessible. We had the Lord of the Rings movies, an endless slew of RPG video games, and high adventure, comic-book style movies were starting to come out regularly. Point is, there was much more in the way of source material aside from novels, while there were still plenty of those too.
Fast forward to 2008. Look around you; "geek culture" is much more the norm, and has been branded and packaged accordingly. High school jocks were now computer geeks, we have entire channels on cable dedicated to animated shows, and in general "fantasy" action in abundance, not just in medieval novels anymore. Everything, from movies, books, television, music, is streamlining itself, trimming the edges... The younger generations don't have the attention span of older gamers (form my experience, not a blanket statement) and demand more "bang for their buck".
Does 4e reject "Gygaxian Naturalism?" Absolutely. Because it HAS to. Things change. This is happening in EVERY form entertainment. Go read some forums of bands who have been around longer than 15 years, and you see ranks of "old-school" fans rallying against new fans. You have movie sequels that don't live up to the expectation of the original. I am reading this thread and we are talking in circles. Did 4e forget it's roots along the way? Not really. As long as it's a medieval fantasy game where players create characters and go on adventures, I think that's good enough for me. Do I care for the way 4e was handled and implemented? No.
The question we have to simply ask ourselves is whether or not the new rules of 4e are for us or not; the constant comparison and endless referencing is getting us nowhere. It's like we're arguing over pizza toppings here.
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.)
|
|
It's interesting to note that xxxx xxxxxx apparently disagrees with Skip's assumptions...
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...
I agree. The product smells of mandates that are out of sync with tradition and 30+ years of history.
I recognize we live in a world where the "me" generation gave rise to the "just following orders of a corporation and there's nothing I can do about it" generation, but I no longer think of those folks as game designers if they're just corporate stooges following directives to tinker with something as precious as the original fantasy role-play game.Perhaps Gary was right to maintain his own integrity, and no wonder the pressures of corporations made him finally say he was sick of the f-ing job.
It just would have been nice to see the handfull of designers, WHO GOT FIRED FROM WOTC LAST THANKSGIVING, .... it would have been marvelous if they had risen to the occasion of speaking up, standing firm, or walking out of their own accord on principle, rather than perform "the deed" of creating 4e.
There's slime all over that product.
Heh. Pax removed someone's cartouche from the temple wall.