I guess, I'd say that this 'naturalism' is, for me, a major part of D&D. If that makes it Gygaxian, I'm cool with that. There are other aspects of the game though, such as "challenge, surprise, and diversity" that are equally important and equally 'Gygaxian'.
I agree, "naturalism" doesn't cover it for me, although it does capture one interesting aspect of the tradition. I'm not sure I would call Pathfinder "Gygaxian" but I do believe PFRPG is truer to the game's roots than 4e.
There can be no quibble that Erik Mona cut his teeth well on Greyhawk—and deserves every accolade he gets. Pathfinder will take v.3.5 gaming with refinement to 3.75 into the next decade. For the first time we will see an "abandoned" system continue to receive consistent and overwhelming support, and continue ad infinitum because 3.5 Never Dies. This is not a statement of judgment over other editions, but because the OGL makes it so, and the 2000s rise of the 3PPs will continue as it deserves to do so. And the open game movement has just begun!
No matter how they try to shut it off. Despite attempts to hide .pdfs of the game's legacy, or bad-mouth previous editions, the Wizards will certainly be met with a lasting continuance of 1e and 3e. And the more they tighten their grasp, the more their stronghold or attempted monopoly (a la discontinuance of Dungeon and Dragon or institution of an iron-clad GSL) will slip through their fingers.
I share these sentiments about Pathfinder and OGL. Especially I think accolades are due to Jason Bulmahn for the Beta playtest, which involved players in the game design in an unprecedented way, and will be seen as an important step in the history of the game.
I don't think 3.5 differs from 3e enough to warrant the phrase "3.5 Never Dies". The OGL was published by WotC in 2000 for 3e.
Let us give credit on the card game to Wizards of the Coast, and let us give credit on Dungeons and Dragons and the entire genre to whom it rightfully belongs. The co-creators of roleplay gaming, E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
Here I disagree. I think this statement minimizes the contributions of Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and other designers (then at WotC) who shaped 3e.
I was unaware about Gygax's involvement in spearheading the Dragonlance project. If that is factually correct, then I agree with you that it did begin to change the "flavor" of the game away from the 1st edition "roots" of the game. I however disagree with the notion you alluded to that it spelled the end of Greyhawk as a setting. Rob J Kuntz stated on this Paizo forum several years ago, that the demise of Greyhawk was due SOLELY to the political fallout of Gygax and the Blumes & L. Williams, and the payback that followed.
While many players will undoubtedly be in favor of the move away from 1st edition/"Gygaxian" type of play; the game has NEVER been as popular since those "barbaric", "non role-playing" days of 1st edition/Ad&d...
Oh I have no doubt that internal politics played a role in the demise of Greyhawk and strongly suspect that one of the reasons the Greyhawk Wars occurred was to make the setting less of Gygax's world and more TSR's world (good supplement nonetheless). However Dragonlance made it clear that it was financially possible to carry out such schemes since its was very lucrative. If it had been a flop TSR might have been a lot more cautious about abandoning Greyhawk despite the politics.
|
The OGL was published by WotC in 2000 for 3e.
Agreed. Sometimes I just like the way 3.5 rhymes,(since were talking about Deities & Demigods, 3-Core books, plus an MMII, and maybe a few supplements over the first 3.5 years, versus the more volumous works and 3PP products), I tend to say v.3.5 rather than 3.x (but you are quite accurate).
|
|
Let us give credit on the card game to Wizards of the Coast, and let us give credit on Dungeons and Dragons and the entire genre to...
Ouch—right again. I recant. Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and other designers did a LOT, including enfusing the existant d20 system into our game, and shaped 3e in ways unpreviously imagined. I was emailing Monte the other day, and he is still very proud of the flexibility of the ruleset.
Thanks Minkscooter.
|
Oh I have no doubt that internal politics played a role in the demise of Greyhawk and strongly suspect that one of the reasons the Greyhawk Wars occurred was to make the setting less of Gygax's world and more TSR's world (good supplement nonetheless). However Dragonlance made it clear that it was financially possible to carry out such schemes since its was very lucrative. If it had been a flop TSR might have been a lot more cautious about abandoning Greyhawk despite the politics.I was unaware about Gygax's involvement in spearheading the Dragonlance project. If that is factually correct, then I agree with you that it did begin to change the "flavor" of the game away from the 1st edition "roots" of the game. I however disagree with the notion you alluded to that it spelled the end of Greyhawk as a setting. Rob J Kuntz stated on this Paizo forum several years ago, that the demise of Greyhawk was due SOLELY to the political fallout of Gygax and the Blumes & L. Williams, and the payback that followed.
While many players will undoubtedly be in favor of the move away from 1st edition/"Gygaxian" type of play; the game has NEVER been as popular since those "barbaric", "non role-playing" days of 1st edition/Ad&d...
To the "Gygax gave Hickman the go ahead" thing: Gygax was in L.A., heading up "TSR Entertainment" when the Hickman era began. It was the Blumes that green lighted DragonLance, not Gygax. In fact, when Gygax came back to Wisconsin and tried to wrest control of TSR back from the Blumes (much of which was over the direction the game was taking as much as bad business decisions by the Blume boys), that is what prompted the Blumes to sell their shares to Lorraine Williams.
Ah, the days that will always live in infamy...
|
|
Let us give credit on the card game to Wizards of the Coast, and let us give credit on Dungeons and Dragons and the entire genre to...Ouch—right again. I recant. Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, and other designers did a LOT, including enfusing the existant d20 system into our game, and shaped 3e in ways unpreviously imagined. I was emailing Monte the other day, and he is still very proud of the flexibility of the ruleset.
Thanks Minkscooter.
You said "give credit to the genre and the game of D&D" to Gygax and Arneson. And you are correct. Give credit to Cook, Tweet and Williams for 3x, sure, but they didn't invent the game, nor did they invent the genre. They wrote an edition. An edition that rejects Gygaxian Naturalism no less than its successor edition, frankly...
Does it date me that when I see the surname Cook on its own I think of David "Zeb" rather than Monte? :D
I wanted to say something.
I want to make a small rant at the topic at end, something that has been bothering me since this so called "edition war" and "We refuse to call D&D 4e D&D" movement that here at Paizo we see so strong.
The original poster jumps through hoops to say "D&D? I liked it better when it was a game about fantastical simulation. Anything that isn't that isn't D&D at all."
That is just untrue. Here is why:
D&D was never about simulation. Not only simulation at least. In fact, it was just one of the many elements from the game.
Let me point out that if you want a good game system to simulate a fantasy world, you always had better options in the market. I could list them, but I don't want to sound like a viral marketer or something.
These systems were created with that intention to simulate the world and aspects of it's internal logic to it.
D&D always had a bizarre, almost broken internal logic and some very badly done cosmology that only the Planescape writers managed to get it right, mostly because they tried to be smart, funny and run with the absurd nature of the planes for instance.
All that 4e did was take all that internal logic, and change it to something else. Instead of you having the completely abstract and insane "naturalism" mentioned on the original poster (seriously just read it again. Djiins producing food? Arbritary wipping numbers for monsters families? A DM could easily create that, in fact a DM should create those aspects to fit better on his own world/situation. Treating monsters, NPCs and other aspects of the world as mere numbers is a bad way of doing simulationism or whatever the hell you want to call it.) and change it to another kind of logic. One that treated the game world mostly as a narrative instead of a actual world. The PCs aren't your regular joes, they are "heroes" they are "above" regular Joes since the first level, the encounters they face are always twitched to match their mettle, and so on.
D&D 4e dropped the broken simulationism in favor of a less broken but still having issues narrative simulation.
And I can understand all of you disliking that.
But please, PLEASE take my advice and instead of calling the new D&D "not D&D", go play a GOOD simulation/fantasy game and compare it to classic/3.X D&D. Your perception will do you wonders, maybe you will find out D&D wasn't your thing after all.
|
|
I wanted to say something.
I want to make a small rant at the topic at end, something that has been bothering me since this so called "edition war" and "We refuse to call D&D 4e D&D" movement that here at Paizo we see so strong.The original poster jumps through hoops to say "D&D? I liked it better when it was a game about fantastical simulation. Anything that isn't that isn't D&D at all."
That is just untrue. Here is why:
D&D was never about simulation. Not only simulation at least. In fact, it was just one of the many elements from the game.
Let me point out that if you want a good game system to simulate a fantasy world, you always had better options in the market. I could list them, but I don't want to sound like a viral marketer or something.
These systems were created with that intention to simulate the world and aspects of it's internal logic to it.
D&D always had a bizarre, almost broken internal logic and some very badly done cosmology that only the Planescape writers managed to get it right, mostly because they tried to be smart, funny and run with the absurd nature of the planes for instance.
All that 4e did was take all that internal logic, and change it to something else. Instead of you having the completely abstract and insane "naturalism" mentioned on the original poster (seriously just read it again. Djiins producing food? Arbritary wipping numbers for monsters families? A DM could easily create that, in fact a DM should create those aspects to fit better on his own world/situation. Treating monsters, NPCs and other aspects of the world as mere numbers is a bad way of doing simulationism or whatever the hell you want to call it.) and change it to another kind of logic. One that treated the game world mostly as a narrative instead of a actual world. The PCs aren't your regular joes, they are "heroes" they are "above" regular Joes since the first level, the encounters they face are always twitched to match their mettle, and so on.
D&D 4e dropped the broken...
Wow, thanks for being about a year late with that observation. We moved passed the edition crap long ago.
Also, the original point of the thread was how far the game has changed from GYGAXIAN assumptions.
This is one of those cases where reading all 600+ posts may have been useful...
As I said, it was mostly a rant. People are still referencing to this thread in other boards about the differences beteween editions.
If you didn't like it than I am sorry, it was mostly my rambling observations. I should had checked more than the first pages though.
Veiled society... Earthshaker.... Vecna Lives! Nah, it doesn't date you, it makes you distinguished in arcane lore.
Knowledge(AD&D Game Designers) DC 15. You pass!!!
Oh, that's right, you're playing 1e.... so.... Your INT is around a 15, huh? Well, you would know this anyhow.
;)
0E, my friend, 0E. I'm 18-19 (Genius). Or a remedial Mind Flayer.
|
|
As I said, it was mostly a rant. People are still referencing to this thread in other boards about the differences beteween editions.
If you didn't like it than I am sorry, it was mostly my rambling observations. I should had checked more than the first pages though.
No worries, but your post doesn't jibe with the current nice, thoughtful conversation we've been having lately.
|
|
0E, my friend, 0E. I'm 18-19 (Genius). Or a remedial Mind Flayer.Veiled society... Earthshaker.... Vecna Lives! Nah, it doesn't date you, it makes you distinguished in arcane lore.
Knowledge(AD&D Game Designers) DC 15. You pass!!!
Oh, that's right, you're playing 1e.... so.... Your INT is around a 15, huh? Well, you would know this anyhow.
;)
You only eat the "brains" on the short bus???
HA! :D
I got dropped on my head as a tadpole.
|
|
I wanted to say something.
I want to make a small rant at the topic at end, something that has been bothering me since this so called "edition war" and "We refuse to call D&D 4e D&D" movement that here at Paizo we see so strong.The original poster jumps through hoops to say "D&D? I liked it better when it was a game about fantastical simulation. Anything that isn't that isn't D&D at all."
That is just untrue. Here is why:
D&D was never about simulation. Not only simulation at least. In fact, it was just one of the many elements from the game.
Let me point out that if you want a good game system to simulate a fantasy world, you always had better options in the market. I could list them, but I don't want to sound like a viral marketer or something.
These systems were created with that intention to simulate the world and aspects of it's internal logic to it.
D&D always had a bizarre, almost broken internal logic and some very badly done cosmology that only the Planescape writers managed to get it right, mostly because they tried to be smart, funny and run with the absurd nature of the planes for instance.
All that 4e did was take all that internal logic, and change it to something else. Instead of you having the completely abstract and insane "naturalism" mentioned on the original poster (seriously just read it again. Djiins producing food? Arbritary wipping numbers for monsters families? A DM could easily create that, in fact a DM should create those aspects to fit better on his own world/situation. Treating monsters, NPCs and other aspects of the world as mere numbers is a bad way of doing simulationism or whatever the hell you want to call it.) and change it to another kind of logic. One that treated the game world mostly as a narrative instead of a actual world. The PCs aren't your regular joes, they are "heroes" they are "above" regular Joes since the first level, the encounters they face are always twitched to match their mettle, and so on.
D&D 4e dropped the broken...
WELCOME TO THE PAIZO boards, OdaNobunaga. Lilith will stop by shortly with some cookies for you. You may call it a rant, but we welcome it.
I am the original poster. Welcome to our thread.
Please allow me to bring you up to speed. This thread contains many wonderful comments, however, the best is yet to come. As a point of fact, we have not yet done a very good job with describing the difference between the editions. Something we will probably get to soon, though.
Our dear old school advocat and philosopher, James Malisewski, posts at www.grognardia.blogspot.com It is his "quoted" blog entry that I posted at the start of this thread. And as a community (we are in the 3e/OGL forums on PAIZO) we have been exploring points and counterpoints that began with Gygaxian Naturalism but moved to recognition that there were many facets of Gygaxian gaming. Many of these have been carried forward as features of newer editions, however, many still have not. And, as the name of the thread suggests, there are Gygaxian precepts and foundations that were not brought forward into this new game that holds the D&D name.
Over the course of time, many of us have also recognized that Oe to 1e and mostly to 2e showed strong consistency with some decay of original Gygaxianisms/Arnsonianisms, however, most recently as Houstonderek mentioned, we are holding some interesting dialogue about points within 3e that broke from Gygaxian gaming, and most of us agree that 4e makes a rather large break from many. None of us are saying these breaks are wholesale, and we have yet to measure or graph these out. And, we aren't full convinced that we've concluded this dialogue.
But the PAIZO community is a good one. My friends know I dislike 4e with a passion, but still we are reasonable folk, and many of us such as Fabesminis, Benois Poire, Houstonderek, etc. remember quite a bit from the games 30+ year history.
This thread holds a lot of convincing evidence that there is a rejection of sorts contained in 4e by design. And, some would say a layer of rejection of Gygax himself, and from a marketing perspective there has been a rejection of the community that chooses to stay with v.3.5 and Pathfinder Role-playing game.
Now, what has been learned is that some are able to play both or all, or none, as their tastes warrant. And, I never believed this was as much any kind of edition war, as I have known with certainty that there has been a strong shift - away from some of the classic tropes, sacred cows, traditions, etc.,... that some of us hold dear.
What has changed is we are still exploring without malice, and we hope to learn from each other. With the recent mysterious disappearance of the legacy .pdfs of early game days, I have moved forward with some care to continue to learn our past, teach our history, and share our understanding of the context of our games history, to more fully understand what we are doing, what we are saying, and appreciate the game in the context of its proud origins.
But, I digress... I agree with you, OdaNobunaga, that the game wasn't necessarily about simulationist play alone. I would say the brilliance of the invention included notions of GNS theory but laid the foundations for so much more. For example, even the DL series that the esteemed Houstonderek dislikes, or the era of deep immersive story-telling, for example, were still able to find a place withing the brilliantly invented game. That is, I put forward James Malisewski's post, but don't necessarily claim to agree with all of it. We are, however, willing to explore the broken-internal-world-like- verisimiltude that Gygax enfused into the classic game. We are also interested in exploring where and how deviations occurred. I do hold that 4e rejects Malisewski's Gygaxian Naturalism, but this is not the only instance where an edition has made a departure from the game as it was originally meant to be played. Many contributors to this thread have pointed out numerous times, for example, how the enfusion of d20 into the game provided a wondrous departure in many ways with 3e. And, interestingly enough, the changes made in 3e, including the beginning of OGL and the open game movement have done wonders for the mileux of dungeons and dragons throughout the world. So much so, that we see the rise of Pathfinder as perhaps the newest legitimate incarnation of Gygax's game.
I still hold that one can draw a straight line from Chainmail to Pathfinder. However, my views have been most recently tempered by our current conversations about how Third Edition (including v.3.5) and Pathfinder also depart in several ways from some Gygaxian fundamentals, though on the whole maintain enough of them to solidly place them as successors to Gygax's game.
Okay, n'uff said for now. Bottom line, OdaNobunaga, you make good points. Thank you for sharing them here. Please stick around a while. Thanks.
To the "Gygax gave Hickman the go ahead" thing: Gygax was in L.A., heading up "TSR Entertainment" when the Hickman era began. It was the Blumes that green lighted DragonLance, not Gygax. In fact, when Gygax came back to Wisconsin and tried to wrest control of TSR back from the Blumes (much of which was over the direction the game was taking as much as bad business decisions by the Blume boys), that is what prompted the Blumes to sell their shares to Lorraine Williams.Ah, the days that will always live in infamy...
The company was reorganized and Gygax left sometime in 83 but Dragonlance first began development in 82 - so he was certainly around when the idea came up and these events took place before Gygax had a fall out with the Blumes. Anyway you guys have me second guessing myself. My information comes from some sizable time line 'history of the game' type article (the gamespy one maybe?) which claimed in passing that Gygax had started the ball rolling by supporting the idea that TSR develop a super campaign of Dragon focused adventures.
I looked on Wikipedia but it implies that the idea originated with Hickman when he swept into the company in '82. Its possible that these are not in conflict - it'd depend on whether or not Gygax still had influence on TSRs projects in '82 or if he had already been cut out of the decision making loop.
Are you just calling me "esteemed" so I'll be nice again?
Does that work?
Oh, and for the record, there were some AWESOME set pieces and maps and stuff in the DL series, it's just the "railroading" was a bit much to take. Plus, I made the mistake of reading the books before I played the adventures...
I totally agree,
...but I think once you start DMing in a style that really utilizes a lot of the material that came with DL you've already begun to step away from a purist version of Gygaxian Naturalism.
Hence the hard question becomes how much can you deviate from the tenets or style guide of the early OD&D and 1E D&D adventures before you've abandoned Gygaxian Naturalism for something else?
I don't think this is an easy question to answer - I'm not even sure its possible to answer such a question. One way to look at the question is to place your style of gaming on some kind of continuum between PCs are regular folks who became adventurers <-----> the PCs are the hero's of a story. Depending on where you stick your gaming style you may adhere closer to or further from Gygaxian Naturalism though I think we'd need a whole bunch of sliders like this before we could really develop any individuals place on some kind of a Gygaxian Naturalism scale.
I apologise that my only contribution to the discussion thus far has been one of flippancy pages ago. I just fear things are getting taken too seriously, sometimes.
Perhaps this comes from my "deflating" perspective, but Gygaxian Naturalism can be boiled down to "Make things make sense" particularly as if "the world goes on without the players."
The former is a good thing in my book. I spend a lot of time working with the consistancy of the world my players are playing in... for one example, one adventure path I ran was
However, I've discovered my current group favors the focus a plot and a driving action gives them. Sandbox play doesn't go over well, and tends to leave them looking for a defined "where" to go next. They want to know less about... how the world goes on its own, and more about where it goes with them. They want to make a difference. They want the story of their fight against evil. They want to be big damn heroes. And that's okay. It means I've been fogging out stuff that isn't relevent to the story and what the PCs are doing, and it's mostly worked.
Long story short, making things make sense is important, but I can see where the world simulationism breaks down for my group.
I don't know, maybe I'm rambling. I just wanted to contribute.
|
|
As I said, it was mostly a rant. People are still referencing to this thread in other boards about the differences beteween editions.
Please point them at the last 5 or so pages or this thread. It'll surprise them I'm sure. Discussion and real debate has been the name of the game. The people posting currently while they have differing views I would not say are "edition war" soldiers. Stick around and please invite some of you 4e friends to join in.
S.
|
|
Hit Points... we all have them and there never enough, right?
I was thinking about other places where 3e/4e breaks away from Gyaxian concepts and I arrived at hp's.
Let say a max STR 1 st level fighter in 3e (18) & 1st AD&D (18/00). This fight will last exactly 1 minute... (assume they both hit with a 2H sword doing MAX damage, yeh!).
1st AD&D steps up, wins initative, hits 10+6 = 16 - whack! The Orc goes down.
3e Fighter steps up, wins initative, hits 12 + 6 = 18 - whack! Ok first 6 seconds, 54 more to go.
So after 1 minute of intense combat the 1e Fighter has a score of 16, the 3e Fighter has a score of 180!!!
Gygax envisioned a round of combat as a series of attack, feints, parries etc which adds up to the damage done lasting a minute, 3e/4e sees combat as a single action resulting in a single hit last 6 seconds.
3e/4e need many more combat rules and modifiers because they are attempting to simulate the combat at a finer level (1/10th to be exact) for 1e AD&D.
Obviously if we have a 20th Fighter then things get even sillier and hard to imagine in 3e, that's a solid hit every 1.2 seconds - that's not a fighter it's a blender.
But 3e/4e (and by that I mean all games based on those rules) is an excellent set of rules that are fun to play and GM - but not Gygaxian...
S.
I apologise that my only contribution to the discussion thus far has been one of flippancy pages ago. I just fear things are getting taken too seriously, sometimes.
I'm at my absolute happiest when engaged in a serous in depth analysis of some aspect of the game with like minded people. Thats not to say there is no room on the forums for flippancy or that threads can't have flippant comments if they are otherwise serous but I don't think anyone should begrudge people that do want to do in depth analysis on aspects of the game that activity.
I apologise that my only contribution to the discussion thus far has been one of flippancy pages ago. I just fear things are getting taken too seriously, sometimes.
Perhaps this comes from my "deflating" perspective, but Gygaxian Naturalism can be boiled down to "Make things make sense" particularly as if "the world goes on without the players."
The former is a good thing in my book. I spend a lot of time working with the consistancy of the world my players are playing in... for one example, one adventure path I ran was** spoiler omitted **
However, I've discovered my current group favors the focus a plot and a driving action gives them. Sandbox play doesn't go over well, and tends to leave them looking for a defined "where" to go next. They want to know less about... how the world goes on its own, and more about where it goes with them. They want to make a difference. They want the story of their fight against evil. They want to be big damn heroes. And that's okay. It means I've been fogging out stuff that isn't relevent to the story and what the PCs are doing, and it's mostly worked.
Long story short, making things make sense is important, but I can see where the world simulationism breaks down for my group.
I don't know, maybe I'm rambling. I just wanted to contribute.
I don't think anyone is contending that this is some how 'badfun'. If this is what works for your and yours then thats the way you should play.
As I said, it was mostly a rant. People are still referencing to this thread in other boards about the differences beteween editions.Please point them at the last 5 or so pages or this thread. It'll surprise them I'm sure. Discussion and real debate has been the name of the game. The people posting currently while they have differing views I would not say are "edition war" soldiers. Stick around and please invite some of you 4e friends to join in.
S.
Its been, for the most part, good for almost the whole thread. Maybe its was at its most 'X edition is the correct edition' in the first page and a half.
Possibly this is in part because Pax originally quoted James Maliszewski in the original post and Mr. Maliszewski is on record as feeling that every edition since 1st has moved the game in the wrong direction. Its probably not a majority stance that any significant group that frequents these boards holds and hence its comparatively easy to hold a mostly edition war free discussion on the pro's and cons of the evolution of the game.
Hit Points... we all have them and there never enough, right?
I was thinking about other places where 3e/4e breaks away from Gyaxian concepts and I arrived at hp's.
Let say a max STR 1 st level fighter in 3e (18) & 1st AD&D (18/00). This fight will last exactly 1 minute... (assume they both hit with a 2H sword doing MAX damage, yeh!).
1st AD&D steps up, wins initative, hits 10+6 = 16 - whack! The Orc goes down.
3e Fighter steps up, wins initative, hits 12 + 6 = 18 - whack! Ok first 6 seconds, 54 more to go.
So after 1 minute of intense combat the 1e Fighter has a score of 16, the 3e Fighter has a score of 180!!!
Gygax envisioned a round of combat as a series of attack, feints, parries etc which adds up to the damage done lasting a minute, 3e/4e sees combat as a single action resulting in a single hit last 6 seconds.
3e/4e need many more combat rules and modifiers because they are attempting to simulate the combat at a finer level (1/10th to be exact) for 1e AD&D.
Obviously if we have a 20th Fighter then things get even sillier and hard to imagine in 3e, that's a solid hit every 1.2 seconds - that's not a fighter it's a blender.
But 3e/4e (and by that I mean all games based on those rules) is an excellent set of rules that are fun to play and GM - but not Gygaxian...
S.
...and yet 1st edition had some fairly detailed rules on whether that one good shot you were going to get in a round would receive benefits of penalties based on the type of armour the opponent was wearing and the type of weapon you were using.
I hadn't really thought about it before but you've definitely hit on one of the major oddities in 1E play. Those 1 minute rounds could be pretty long. I mean they almost, sort of, make sense if we are thinking of fencing (though real fencing matches rarely last more then a 10 or 20 seconds when I've watched them) but they break down, IMO, pretty badly when there is a Dragon or Tyrannosaurus in your face.
|
|
I just wanted to contribute.
We're glad you did contribute; I didn't perceive rambling...
I think in general, players prefer a driving action rather than absolute freedom. For more on this topic, check out Mairkurion {tm}'s thread entitled, "I've been working on the railroad" within these 3e/OGL forums.I would, however, also suggest that what you're calling world simulationism reminds me of a good analogy... Comedians, especially good ones, and particularly those that improvise well, tend to prepare a LOT. What I mean is, they work very, very hard on many, many very prepared things — so that when they go on stage, they can throw away all their preparation and just improvise.
This, is the key, at least this is Pax Veritas' personal method, to delivering an absolutely fantastic evening of gaming. Even after 25+ years, I still put in the time preparing. And, I do this so when I sit down as the game master, I can toss all my preparation out the window.
This is a technique that is written about in many theatrical books, and is often the subject of learning when new teachers or business trainers cut their teeth on good facilitation techniques.
I believe this, is some of the magic dust that Gary would have us sprinkle on our tabletops. Good knowledge of your world, yes, even the minutae that seems "isn't relevent to the story and what the PCs are doing" does indeed contribute in ancilary ways: GM's confidence, improvisation ability, extra content if needed, spontaneous scenes and places can be delivered as though they were planned... and the players catch this infectious belief that the game master is looking out and describing the world for the characters with her mind's eye.
Yeah, so, I get what you're saying. And if its a chore and you find yourself preparing useless stuff - stop doing it. But if you enjoy it, or if you're working on stuff that "has the possibility" of being used, then I say most assuredly: CONTINUE!!!
Players can smell a GM that doesn't have a good sense of the world. They're depending on you to help them feel like their PCs are there. Gygaxian Naturalism, and to a large extent, Gary's intimations in works such as his Insidiae are excellent works that exemplify how knowledge of the working world can help the GM both improvise and maintain believability that the world isn't two-dimensional.
|
|
... 3e/4e sees combat as a single action resulting in a single hit last 6 seconds.
Ouch - while I appreciate your insight here, and hit points is an execellent abstraction worthy for sure, of its own thread, I must pause to challenge your statement here.
You will not find any documented statement in 3e that "3e sees combat as a single action resulting in a single hit last 6 seconds".
Now, I am an intuitive person, so, if you're meaning to say that the way mechanics actually play at the table, there is representation in 3e of a short 6 second period when the mechanical representation of combat is still limited to a few rolls, usually amounting to damage in relation to a limited number of "attacts" according to the raw, then I understand. But never, never is it meant to be perceived as just one swing with the sword. All these mechanics, and yes, even those singualr RAYS that are so popular, are designed to call for, on the part of the player, a gentle abstraction of thought during which the representative numbers and mechanics reflect the same Gygaxian description of dodging, attacking, feinting, parrying, etc.
So, .... you don't buy it? Well, I don't blame ya. And I really don't wish to digress into the details of combat rules... but this is the stretching, purposefully ambiguous, abstraction that has consistently been asked of players.
If anything, I am willing to go along the line of thought that 3e tends to IMPLY so much detail within the ruleset, that many are drawn to make unintentional conclusions such as this. But, yeah, it was never meant to represent just one swing in six seconds.
|
|
Ouch - while I appreciate your insight here, and hit points is an execellent abstraction worthy for sure, of its own thread, I must pause to challenge your statement here.
I so you should!
I think things like the "round" and how it is described is part of the divergence from Gygaxian principles right up there with non-Vancian spell casting.
Lets take pathfinder beta (as I have it on hand), page 133 "Each round represents 6 seconds..." Ok we have agreed on that, Gygax states 1 minute.
page 131
Attack Roll
"An attack represents your attempt to strike your opponent..."
page 134
Making an attack is a standard action.
Both are written in the singular.
Nowhere (please correct me if I'm wrong) does it state either way if "an" attack is a single blow or the culmination of swing/parry/feint/strike etc. But the language used implies the former. If we think of a 20th fighter, in 3e+ then you have to really think in abstract terms more so than 1e AD&D - one "attack" every 1.2 seconds. Swinging and recovering with a 6' two-handed sword in 1.2 seconds? Difficult to picture.
The Gygaxian round has more feeling of "real" to it. Strangely enough Gygax brought realism to our fantasy such that he made the unbelievable a little more believable, or so I believe :)
Watch any real life boxing match - the wole fight would be compressed into 1 minute under 3e+ but would be 10 minutes under 1e [Gygax you rule - that's about right]. The 6 second rounds are more "Hollywood", flashing blades and all that. It goes hand in hand with using maps and miniatures because with shorter rounds it becomes more important to know where you are and what you can do.
I don't think that discussion of the round is out of place here, because it's length is indeed another example of how GN was eroded in later editions.
S.
The OGL was published by WotC in 2000 for 3e.Agreed. Sometimes I just like the way 3.5 rhymes,(since were talking about Deities & Demigods, 3-Core books, plus an MMII, and maybe a few supplements over the first 3.5 years, versus the more volumous works and 3PP products), I tend to say v.3.5 rather than 3.x (but you are quite accurate).
Speaking of 3.5, did you see the slogan "3.5 Thrives" on the Pathfinder RPG Launch Poster? Looks like you were on to something :)
I was emailing Monte the other day, and he is still very proud of the flexibility of the ruleset.
Lucky you!
The 6 second rounds are more "Hollywood", flashing blades and all that. It goes hand in hand with using maps and miniatures because with shorter rounds it becomes more important to know where you are and what you can do.
I don't think that discussion of the round is out of place here, because it's length is indeed another example of how GN was eroded in later editions.
But Gygax was a great miniatures enthusiast, and at least once endorsed the use of miniatures as the dominant model for tabletop RPGs. Check out his article reprinted in Dungeon #112 (The Maure Castle super adventure).
I think that the cinematic round is more suited to a fantasy or heroic adventure game, and that the one minute round is probably a holdover from the tactical simulations of his earlier wargaming days. I actually had trouble imagining one minute rounds when I was a kid playing 1e. Of course, in 1e, there were also "segments", each 1/10 of a round, and I never was quite clear on when to use them. The 3e authors cleaned up the confusion by settling on one unit, turning the segment into the round. Actually, I wish the round was a little longer, say ten seconds instead of six seconds.
Emphasizing where you are and what you can do does make D&D more tactically interesting, if you enjoy those aspects as much as the storytelling. I don't see how an emphasis on tactics is necessarily at odds with the naturalism of a self-consistent world that goes about its business with or without the PCs. Same goes if you prefer an emphasis on role playing and story telling. These aspects of the game can vary independently, because individual playing styles are a mix. I'm sure that Gary tried different styles, believing in fun more than any "right" way to play.
Mostly, I disagree that the game has "eroded" since 1e. Instead, I see a tradition in which people build on the ideas of the past, always striving toward something that is even more fun to play. Really, I think that's what Pathfinder is about.
|
|
...you see the slogan "3.5 Thrives" on the Pathfinder RPG Launch Poster?
I love it! Especially how the big red line crosses out 3.5 Survives. The implication, nay, the bold and clear line of dileniation is drawn. Wow, thanks for pointing it out to me - don't know how I missed that. Manythanks, Minkscooter.
|
|
Ouch - while I appreciate your insight here, and hit points is an execellent abstraction worthy for sure, of its own thread, I must pause to challenge your statement here.
I so you should!
I think things like the "round" and how it is described is part of the divergence from Gygaxian principles right up there with non-Vancian spell casting.
Lets take pathfinder beta (as I have it on hand), page 133 "Each round represents 6 seconds..." Ok we have agreed on that, Gygax states 1 minute.
page 131
Attack Roll
"An attack represents your attempt to strike your opponent..."page 134
Making an attack is a standard action.Both are written in the singular.
Nowhere (please correct me if I'm wrong) does it state either way if "an" attack is a single blow or the culmination of swing/parry/feint/strike etc. But the language used implies the former. If we think of a 20th fighter, in 3e+ then you have to really think in abstract terms more so than 1e AD&D - one "attack" every 1.2 seconds. Swinging and recovering with a 6' two-handed sword in 1.2 seconds? Difficult to picture.
The Gygaxian round has more feeling of "real" to it. Strangely enough Gygax brought realism to our fantasy such that he made the unbelievable a little more believable, or so I believe :)
Watch any real life boxing match - the wole fight would be compressed into 1 minute under 3e+ but would be 10 minutes under 1e [Gygax you rule - that's about right]. The 6 second rounds are more "Hollywood", flashing blades and all that. It goes hand in hand with using maps and miniatures because with shorter rounds it becomes more important to know where you are and what you can do.
I don't think that discussion of the round is out of place here, because it's length is indeed another example of how GN was eroded in later editions.
S.
S,
Respectfully, you have just restated the aspect of our discussion that we've already covered and don't necessarily find issue with. Gygax=1 Round=1 minute, 1 turn=10 minutes, and a segment=6 seconds. Cook,Tweet=Round=6 seconds.You're preachin' to the converted here, pal. Gygax belived strongly in providing so much "realism" in the fantasy, that the suspension of disbelief would occur at the table for the stuff that was fantastic and unreal. He carefully blended the two, and determined also, that some things in the game should remain vast vistas of un-codefied (no rules) opportunity to be handled gently by the GM.
No issues here.
The fact that Monte and Jonathan decided to promote Gary's "segment" to the focus of combat play, is indeed a change, perhaps one of the biggest changes in focus. And the six second measurement had already existed.
But, Stefan:
What you will NEVER hear me say, nor shall I ever agree with, is your inference that the verbiage, though singular tense as it describes the "attack" per se, somehow represents an actual swing.
(humor) Have you ever seen Dorkness Rising? The visual interpretation of the Cook/Tweet "convention" and combat abstration you describe is very funny indeed to see.
So again, I respect your view, but even though the combat focus shifted to the "segment", actual "hits" represent those occasions upon which contact or success was achieved, but never, never, mean that one just one swing was taken. (Or in the Case of High Level Play e.g. +6/+1, two hits.)
This comes from a long tradition of fantasy role-play, and perhaps provdides a counter argument that the refocus in time isn't as much a departure as much as it refocused the duration we attend to in combat.
But, overall, the 18 second combat is, at times, as difficult to abide, as the three minute combat was. In the end, any act of simulationism in this regard does brush up against the edges of our disbelief - but these systems were designed to do the best they could (some longer, some shorter), to get closer to the feel of combat.
The game designers themselves would concur that the "attack roll" isn't designed to represent the fighter swinging once. In this regard 1e,2e,3e and Pathfinder hold that all in common.
|
|
Mostly, I disagree that the game has "eroded" since 1e. Instead, I see a tradition in which people build on the ideas of the past, always striving toward something that is even more fun to play. Really, I think that's what Pathfinder is about.
I didn't mean eroded in a bad way, just developing away from the original ideals that Gygax penned. It is true that later editions attempted to make play more "fun", but at a cost. Cleric for every race, every class for every race, spells in combat - I'm sure Gygax had his reason for not allowing the above in AD&D - this was Gygaxian Naturism, the fantasy world as he saw it. I won't pretend to know Gygax's mind, but there must have been a good reason. I think Pathfinder is the most well thought out set of fantasy rules in existence - it doesn't need people trying to give it more due by implying it's the rightful heir of AD&D. Play it for what it is a derivative of AD&D, in the same way that 4e is a derivative of AD&D.
I fully agree that wargaming influenced the AD&D round, but I had always considered about a minute round ok given the description of a combat round. But you are right people demanded (it would appear) more tactical control during a combat - it is no small wonder we have arrive at 4e and its combat system. I have never used miniatures until I had a bash at 4e, and I'll admit I'm still not comfortable with their use. But I see that in 4e it is required and part of the fun of the game, so I'm not implying miniature play is bad or wrong - just not what I have been use too.
If I were to be pressed I would simply say;
Gygax wrote the most excellent "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"
Bulmahn wrote the most excellent Pathfinder - the best iteration of 3e "Dungeons & Dragons" to date.
And I'll add whoever (sorry no idea) wrote 4e D&D has written the best iteration of 4e "D&D" to date!
So in all fairness only 2e tried to be AD&D, then it called itself D&D - so we have a situation where the best AD&D is the ONLY AD&D... 1e. I rest my case.
Fair enough?
:)
|
|
But Gygax was a great miniatures enthusiast,
Sure, he and his friends used to cut dungeon tiles out of actual floor tiles, hence the name.
And, back in the day, having the painted figure, then made from metal, helped out the imagination.... society wasn't as saturated with that imagery so the figures actually aided the imagination.
Then, in the 1980s the action adventures, namely the works of Stephen Speilberg changed the way Americans and the world consumed fantasy (either sci-fi or fantasy), because Speilberg literally gave you everthing you needed to know.
So, Minkscooter, perhaps this is where the refocusing on the segment AS the round speaks to your point about being suited to a fantasy or heric adventure game.
And, you can see this shift in the art of our game, as it works its way though time, toward the pinacle of detail in 3e. Now I see the exactness is dialing back once again in games such as Pathfinder, and admittedly 4e. Even the figures are losing some of their detail, as to suggest the perceiver's imagination is still necessary.
Before Speilberg, viewers needed to fill in the gaps with their imagination, rather than in-take, everthing needed to know.
As you might imagine, for these reasons, I adore B-moves and evocative sci-fi like old Dr. Who. (but that might be a whole other conversation, because I like old Dr. Who and new Dr. Who for different reasons).
Ouch - while I appreciate your insight here, and hit points is an execellent abstraction worthy for sure, of its own thread, I must pause to challenge your statement here.
I so you should!
I think things like the "round" and how it is described is part of the divergence from Gygaxian principles right up there with non-Vancian spell casting.
Lets take pathfinder beta (as I have it on hand), page 133 "Each round represents 6 seconds..." Ok we have agreed on that, Gygax states 1 minute.
page 131
Attack Roll
"An attack represents your attempt to strike your opponent..."page 134
Making an attack is a standard action.Both are written in the singular.
Nowhere (please correct me if I'm wrong) does it state either way if "an" attack is a single blow or the culmination of swing/parry/feint/strike etc. But the language used implies the former. If we think of a 20th fighter, in 3e+ then you have to really think in abstract terms more so than 1e AD&D - one "attack" every 1.2 seconds. Swinging and recovering with a 6' two-handed sword in 1.2 seconds? Difficult to picture.
The Gygaxian round has more feeling of "real" to it. Strangely enough Gygax brought realism to our fantasy such that he made the unbelievable a little more believable, or so I believe :)
Watch any real life boxing match - the wole fight would be compressed into 1 minute under 3e+ but would be 10 minutes under 1e [Gygax you rule - that's about right]. The 6 second rounds are more "Hollywood", flashing blades and all that. It goes hand in hand with using maps and miniatures because with shorter rounds it becomes more important to know where you are and what you can do.
I don't think that discussion of the round is out of place here, because it's length is indeed another example of how GN was eroded in later editions.
S.
It might be a bit of hollywood but there was a certain amount of method to the madness. Monte talks about constructing the rounds by having people try and do things in the office. Its still an abstraction but I suspect that if you give two guys wooden sticks each will get a good jab at the other in about 6 seconds. If you watch two fencers on Youtube they strike at each other amazingly fast. It does not easily fit all situations but its pretty reasonable considering that some number had to be chosen.
I don't know where Mr. Gygax got the 1 minute round from but if I had to guess I'd say it seemed reasonable in light of miniature wargaming and military history. If your looking at how long things take to resolve when two lines of armoured warriors smash into each other it probably works out to some number between 5 and 20 minutes presuming they both have decent moral.
The problem here is that there would be a lot of other things happening in such a fight. A lot of people, a lot of the time, would not be contributing to killing the other side but instead catching their breath or trying to find a lost weapon or just getting a drink of water. When the Samurai Warrior, say, actually faces off against an enemy Samurai Warrior that part is pretty fast in all likelyhood. Its just that the winner probably then avoids combat for a minute or two instead of reengaging immediately.
EDIT:
DANG! My brilliant insight was already covered by Minkscooter.
|
|
My problems with the six second combat round are peppered throughout the forums here (particularly the play test forums) and are legion (particularly the change in the dynamic between weapon and spell focused classes), so I won't waste too much time discussing them here; however, the effect it has on casting (coupled with the 3x movement rules) completely turns me off. Turning most multi-segment casting time spells into less than six seconds casting time spells (the only way I can justify a wizard getting a 30 ft. move AND being allowed to cast) smacks of the "pew, pew, pew" factor I abhor in my RPGs. Wizards used to be rooted in place if a spell had a somatic component, no brisk walking allowed! (3.5 mph is a brisk walk for people not in tip top shape, and most optimized wizards are hardly bundles of strength or endurance).
I could go on and on about the subject, but it would just lead me to asking Pax to e-mail Monte to ask why he hates fighters. ;)
|
|
And this past Monday, I had the misfortune of watching Houstonderek's scenario play out at my table. If I had more time I'd go get the spell name out of the Spell Compendium.
It went like this...
The struggling 7th level party breaches the security around the Palace of the Skull, find a secret way in, and seal up Palace Guards within one of the rooms. After defeating the hallway construct death guards, they defile an evil temple and an alchemical double of their enemy.
So far so good.
We left off after they defeated two construct Sepulchral Guardians. While the rest of the characters were beaten down, brused, etc., the Sorcerer, Desmelda the Evoker, whips out this spell that allows her to:
>Deafen
>Knock Prone
>Defenestrate the enemy by whipping them 30 feet in a direction
>Then cast another magic missile spell
Yeah, even good game-masters have days like this. I could tell by the look on the other players faces that they were sensing that something was "broken." The sorcerer basically stole the show. I have no issues with one character taking the spotlight, but that spell and character played like a PC of 5 or six levels higher...
Mea Culpa, however, for providing that Defenestration spell to the player.
Houstonderek - I see your point.
Yet, where does that leave us all? 6 seconds too short, and 1 minute too long, 10 seconds not worth changing for... 30 seconds seems arbitrary... I don't know the answer to this one.
I guess at this point, either I run OSRIC 2.0, or I run Pathfinder. I might regret going here, but.... what did they decide in the so-called, fourth edition? Just how may whacks, bangs, pew, pew, pews are available in 4e?
|
|
Well, that's another reason why, while I can play 4e and have a fun time of it, I really can't embrace 4e.
To be honest, the more I read this thread, and the more I think about it, I really feel the same way about 3x. I was very much on board in 2000 after suffering through (and ignoring, for the most part) the soap opera that was 2e, as 3x was kind of refreshing in its "reset", so to speak. But, the more I think about it, the more I think WotC never really got the point of D&D. They always just treated it like a name they could sell. Sure, some very cool things came out of the OGL, and the edition somewhat revitalized the game, but it never really had the soul of Gygax and Arneson's invention.
That isn't to say quite a few people who worked on the game and for the magazines didn't have the mojo (and, sorry, but I don't put any former I.C.E. employees in that category...), but for the most part, I am becoming more and more convinced that most of them didn't.
Eh, I guess this thread just has my thoughts wandering back to how much MORE fun I had when Gygax ran the show and produced material directly out of his vision for the game (and for the years after when his material was the starting point for my home brew). The "single voice" rang truer to me than the "voice by committee" of later editions, I suppose...
And this past Monday, I had the misfortune of watching Houstonderek's scenario play out at my table. If I had more time I'd go get the spell name out of the Spell Compendium.
It went like this...
The struggling 7th level party breaches the security around the Palace of the Skull, find a secret way in, and seal up Palace Guards within one of the rooms. After defeating the hallway construct death guards, they defile an evil temple and an alchemical double of their enemy.
So far so good.
We left off after they defeated two construct Sepulchral Guardians. While the rest of the characters were beaten down, brused, etc., the Sorcerer, Desmelda the Evoker, whips out this spell that allows her to:
>Deafen
>Knock Prone
>Defenestrate the enemy by whipping them 30 feet in a direction
>Then cast another magic missile spellYeah, even good game-masters have days like this. I could tell by the look on the other players faces that they were sensing that something was "broken." The sorcerer basically stole the show. I have no issues with one character taking the spotlight, but that spell and character played like a PC of 5 or six levels higher...
Mea Culpa, however, for providing that Defenestration spell to the player.
Houstonderek - I see your point.
Yet, where does that leave us all? 6 seconds too short, and 1 minute too long, 10 seconds not worth changing for... 30 seconds seems arbitrary... I don't know the answer to this one.
I guess at this point, either I run OSRIC 2.0, or I run Pathfinder. I might regret going here, but.... what did they decide in the so-called, fourth edition? Just how may whacks, bangs, pew, pew, pews are available in 4e?
You have, I think, three points in this post that can be answered in regards to 4E.
#1: Are there situations where character class X (especially a mage or sorcerer)just seems to dominant?
#2: How long are combat rounds and does that seem to work?
#3: Is there an effect during such rounds where a character class, especially a magic using character class just seems to be blazing away like a laser turret (pew...pew)
#3 is easiest to answer - yes. pew...pew is very much part of 4E. Arguably even more so then other editions because they never run out of their at will spells. Magic Missile is an infinite resource if you've chosen Magic Missile as one of your powers.
#2 combat rounds are still 6 seconds. There is a slight difference in that defenses tend to be a bit higher and offense lower so combats take more rounds. Things are nearly never over in 18 seconds tending to be a little under or a little over a minute.
On the downside of this there is a concept that some are complaining about called Grind. You see this in 3.5 sometimes so I'll use that as the basis of the example. Essentially Grind starts the moment, during a combat, when its clear to both the players and the DM that the players have won the fight but there is still opposition around. Its really annoying because combats where the bad guys might manage to hit a few more times but don't actually endanger the players in any real sense are fundamentally boring. In 3.5 when this occurs the magic using characters stop casting spells (why waste them on a forgone conclusion) and the whole thing just starts to drag.
Its not that bad in 3.5 because high damage output means a fight thats over except for the rolling will be done in a round or two at most. This effect is more annoying in 4E because it takes longer to resolve often lasting 3 or 4 rounds instead of the 1 or 2 it'd be in 3.5. It can feel more annoying in some ways in 4E as well because it takes place after both sides have generally done all the cool stuff they are going to do during an encounter. The monster(s) have used their tricks and it no longer is interesting to the players that they have a claw/claw/bite routine or breath fire or whatever their schtick is. The players will have already used any encounter powers they where going to use along with action points or daily powers and have set up whatever it is they are trying to set up (getting flanking etc.) so they are now just spamming their at will powers again and again - probably having worked out which one is best for this encounter and then using it for the next 3 or 4 rounds in a row.
Hence Grind is not good in 3.5 or 4E and should, if at all possible, be avoided in encounter design but when it occurs in 4E its worse then when it occurs 3.5.
#1 generally does not come up in 4E. Characters are weaker in 4E then in 3.5, especially at high levels. There are almost no powers or effects that just shut either a character or monster down. You can hinder them for a bit but just about everything comes with a save that goes off every round and if you make the save the hindrance ends. Offensive powers almost always use your attack, some powers can be done as a minor action (think swift or quicken action) but these are almost always things that help fellow party members. My 4E cleric gets a lot of such powers to help heal fellow party members or allow them to make extra saves out of sequence etc. the offensively orientated classes rarely have powers that can be used as a minor action and on the occasion they do it'll be something like 'get an extra 5' step and not a bonus attack.
I didn't mean eroded in a bad way, just developing away from the original ideals that Gygax penned. It is true that later editions attempted to make play more "fun", but at a cost. Cleric for every race, every class for every race, spells in combat - I'm sure Gygax had his reason for not allowing the above in AD&D - this was Gygaxian Naturism, the fantasy world as he saw it. I won't pretend to know Gygax's mind, but there must have been a good reason. I think Pathfinder is the most well thought out set of fantasy rules in existence - it doesn't need people trying to give it more due by implying it's the rightful heir of AD&D. Play it for what it is a derivative of AD&D, in the same way that 4e is a derivative of AD&D.
I responded to what you seemed to be saying and probably didn't read carefully enough. I think both games pretend to the role of rightful heir; the Pathfinder claim is just more believable to me. 4e has some top designers and looks like it would be fun to play; I just didn't happen to like how it constrained my choices, and similar to houstonderek, I was turned off by the loss of Vancian magic.
The 4e PHB claims "It's new. It's exciting. It's bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade."
That's in "The History of D&D" section that claimed wishful things like "in 1989 the long-awaited second edition of AD&D took the world by storm." I'm sure none of the designers wrote that piece, but still, it was the first thing about 4e that made me start to think "Uh-oh." It was interesting to me that the history credits repackaging (the first Basic Set) with the sudden rise of D&D into a phenomenon.
I fully agree that wargaming influenced the AD&D round, but I had always considered about a minute round ok given the description of a combat round. But you are right people demanded (it would appear) more tactical control during a combat - it is no small wonder we have arrive at 4e and its combat system. I have never used miniatures until I had a bash at 4e, and I'll admit I'm still not comfortable with their use. But I see that in 4e it is required and part of the fun of the game, so I'm not implying miniature play is bad or wrong - just not what I have been use too.
Monte Cook complained about the emphasis on miniatures during the transition to 3.5, specifically objecting to the use of squares rather than feet. I think he wanted the game to encourage the freedom to play it however you liked, and he criticized the cynicism of trying to boost miniatures sales.
If I were to be pressed I would simply say;
Gygax wrote the most excellent "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons"
Bulmahn wrote the most excellent Pathfinder - the best iteration of 3e "Dungeons & Dragons" to date.
And I'll add whoever (sorry no idea) wrote 4e D&D has written the best iteration of 4e "D&D" to date!So in all fairness only 2e tried to be AD&D, then it called itself D&D - so we have a situation where the best AD&D is the ONLY AD&D... 1e. I rest my case.
Fair enough?
:)
Fair enough. :) I ignored most of 2e, and am finding out now that I probably missed out on some cool stuff like Planescape and Birthright.
Still I'd rather not partition the editions into different games, because I prefer to see a progression. 3e was more than just an edition to me. It convinced me that the game was worth playing again.
|
|
some very cool things came out of the OGL, and the edition somewhat revitalized the game, but it never really had the soul of Gygax and Arneson's invention.
Eh, I guess this thread just has my thoughts wandering back to how much MORE fun I had when Gygax ran the show and produced material directly out of his vision for the game (and for the years after when his material was the starting point for my home brew). The "single voice" rang truer to me than the "voice by committee" of later editions, I suppose...
That is where I find myself at also. Funny how a thread started to bash 4e (if we are honest about it) ends deeply philosophical and asks "what is Gyaxian Naturism" in the first place and do ANY editions beyond 1e AD&D adhere truly to this principle (whatever it is)?
I have the 1e AD&D FF winging it's way from the US of A completing my re-acquisition of the works of E. Gary Gygax <joy>.
Again I can only but thanked the learned individuals contributing to what has becoming a very interesting and informative topic!
Highest regards,
Stefan.
|
|
The 4e PHB claims "It's new. It's exciting. It's bright and shiny. It builds on what has gone before, and firmly establishes D&D for the next decade."Monte Cook complained about the emphasis on miniatures during the transition to 3.5
Fair enough. :) I ignored most of 2e, and am finding out now that I probably missed out on some cool stuff like Planescape and Birthright.
Completely their right as holders of the IP, and at face value it is true (meaning see any other games called D&D being published?) - but continuation of Gyaxian Naturism? I think not.
I knew I always like Monte, any person who thinks the role of miniatures in a D&D game is to display "marching order" is fine my me!!! :)
Never played Planescape, but Birthright had a very cool system to having PC's run realms - a little bit "Accountants & Tax Returns" of a game sometimes. But on the whole fun.
Cheers,
S.
|
|
...am finding out now that I probably missed out on some cool stuff like Planescape
While away recently on a fun road trip, a game store owner I befriended gave me a stack of 1990s Dragon magazines—including the one with the Placescape poster. Its the one that you need to spin all around to read it because its written around in a circle all about the planes. I remember playing games in sigil, and yeah... it was a fun and unique setting. As much as I rail against what Bill S has done with 4e, I must give props to Dark Sun and Planescape—two settings that gave us many hours of fun in the 1990s.
|
|
some very cool things came out of the OGL, and the edition somewhat revitalized the game, but it never really had the soul of Gygax and Arneson's invention.
Eh, I guess this thread just has my thoughts wandering back to how much MORE fun I had when Gygax ran the show and produced material directly out of his vision for the game (and for the years after when his material was the starting point for my home brew). The "single voice" rang truer to me than the "voice by committee" of later editions, I suppose...
That is where I find myself at also. Funny how a thread started to bash 4e (if we are honest about it) ends deeply philosophical and asks "what is Gyaxian Naturism" in the first place and do ANY editions beyond 1e AD&D adhere truly to this principle (whatever it is)?
I have the 1e AD&D FF winging it's way from the US of A completing my re-acquisition of the works of E. Gary Gygax <joy>.
Again I can only but thanked the learned individuals contributing to what has becoming a very interesting and informative topic!
Highest regards,
Stefan.
Right back at you, Stefan Hill, thank you.
Turning most multi-segment casting time spells into less than six seconds casting time spells (the only way I can justify a wizard getting a 30 ft. move AND being allowed to cast) smacks of the "pew, pew, pew" factor I abhor in my RPGs. Wizards used to be rooted in place if a spell had a somatic component, no brisk walking allowed! (3.5 mph is a brisk walk for people not in tip top shape, and most optimized wizards are hardly bundles of strength or endurance).
As much as I enjoy the unified and modular mechanics of 3.x, this can be a bit annoying once play gets to 6th level or above (and really starts to impact the game at 11th+ level). A possible fix is to keep 0-level to 3rd-level spells at standard action casting time, while 4th-level and higher spells (apart from a few specifically designed for rapid casting, such as the power word spells) all have full-round action casting times. If you want spellcasters to be a bit more powerful, then you can increase that to 0-level to 4th-level spells retaining a standard action casting time (or even 0-level to 5th-level; since Quicken Spell adds 4 levels to the casting/spell slot, there's not as much need for 6th-level spells or higher to have standard action casting times, IMO). An alternate solution is to tie casting time to the spell level relative to caster level: all spells, unless specifically designed with shorter/longer casting times, take a full round action to cast until the caster level is four times the spell level (or CL 2 for 0-level spells), at which point they take a standard action to cast; I personally prefer this solution, as it simulates a spellcaster's growing "mastery" of magic.
As far as the "feel" of editions goes, I think that the game has moved from the somewhat gritty, sword & sorcery style of early 1st Ed AD&D (before Unearthed Arcana) and Basic/Expert D&D to a more "heroic," high fantasy style; the spellcasting change in 3.x being just one aspect of this. IMO, this is neither a good or bad thing, but just something to keep in mind, either for choosing between editions/systems for a particular campaign/story arc or for house-rule considerations when building a setting.
An alternate solution is to tie casting time to the spell level relative to caster level: all spells, unless specifically designed with shorter/longer casting times, take a full round action to cast until the caster level is four times the spell level (or CL 2 for 0-level spells), at which point they take a standard action to cast; I personally prefer this solution, as it simulates a spellcaster's growing "mastery" of magic.
Other than feel, I'm guessing there are two goals:
1. restore the opportunity to neutralize casters while the act of casting makes them vulnerable (a fun aspect I remember from 1e)
2. disallow casting and moving in the same round to balance the capabilities of fighters and casters
Both of these trade-offs make play more interesting, and help to justify devastating spell effects that can decide the outcome of battle. I like the "growing mastery" idea for achieving this, since even in 1e, there was a notion of powerful casters blasting their foes with spells. I think the caster gimps listed above are even more interesting when you can't always count on them (because the enemy caster may be more powerful than you expect). This also makes higher levels for your own caster feel that much more sweet.
4x spell level seems a little high, unless you're proposing feats to compensate, since nothing above a 3rd level spell is likely to be cast as a standard action (given the current lack of high-level play in Pathfinder). I think I would use 3x instead, allowing a 9th level wizard to cast fireball as a standard action, for example (a full four levels after he is able to cast it as a full-round action).
|
|
I was thinking about Dragonlance (sorry houstonderek) and how one of the World defining bit of DL history would play out in each edition...
The setting;
The Kingpriest of Istar decides to get rid of the Mages and take over their Towers of High Sorcery...
Under 4e
As the average Wizard is still at 80-90% of their power after spending their dailies so either (a) the attacking rabble get nuked and can't win or (b) 4e Wizards are so underpowered that the rabble win. However in option (b) why was the Kingpriest or anyone for that matter so worried about the mages again?
Under 3.xe
With combat casting why not be heroic and stand on the top of the tower smiting down the enemy? Quick sorting out of "shift work" for the mages and 8 hours rest later, all spells back! Rabble lose badly. Alternatively the "smart" rabble laying siege the Tower of High Sorcery would take a collective "Ready Action". Then I can imagine the wizard yelling from the tower, "So what are you doing, attacking or not?!" - to with the elected representative of the rabble yells back "We have a ready action, er, ready to disrupt you spell casting". To which the wizard yells back "Well we aren't casting until you do a different action.", then the rabble reply in unicon "Oh, no we won't. You starting casting you evil wizards!" Almost Monty Pyhton really...
Under 2e
See below but a few more spell actually going off thanks to the new initiative system.
Under 1e
Head wizards meet and decide while they could go down fighting and leave one hell of a repair bill - basically they are screwed. If the Arch-Mages unload it'll then take 8 days to recover all their spells!
Musings....