Others may find these rules perfectly fine, and that's great. I cope with them because I like RPGs and I just hide my contemp as best I can when I come across it. But if this is how it's going to be, with having to go through 150 loops just so I can play a were-bear berserker that mechanically stinks because the rules don't play into that concept is NOT a D&D I want to play. It's just another side of the coin.
I understand the sentiment loud and clear. This is the place where 3.5 fans found themselves when 4e was released. Before there was Paizo, the refrain that 3rd edition fans heard was "nobody is stealing your books," "or you can still play 3rd edition forever." things along that line. Before Paizo came along and recreated 3rd edition, 3rd edition fans looked like they were going to be in the dust. There were alot of 4vengers very happy with that.
All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project? WOTC quite literally left fans in the dust. They might do that with their old 4e fans as well.
I have said before there is nothing in 4e that I thought improved the game other than the DDI, which is system independent. Yet I feel no excitement about WOTC giving older fans what they want. I have Pathfinder now, I don't need then to release the 3rd edition mechanics again. I wouldn't bother playing it.
I would be interested in revisiting the AD&D style. I could trade off playing Pathfinder with AD&D. With that said I think WOTC should cater to the people that support them. They made a terrible mistake with 4e and lost a good share of the market. Still the people that 4e fits will want that game and WOTC should support it. Reverting back will fix nothing.
The only thing Wotc has over Paizo is MAgic the Gathering and rights to a D&D brand. These days the D&D brand isn't all its cracked up to be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the sentiment loud and clear. This is the place where 3.5 fans found themselves when 4e was released. Before there was Paizo, the refrain that 3rd edition fans heard was "nobody is stealing your books," "or you can still play 3rd edition forever." things along that line. Before Paizo came along and recreated 3rd edition, 3rd edition fans looked like they were going to be in the dust. There were alot of 4vengers very happy with that.All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project? WOTC quite literally left fans in the dust. They might do that with their old 4e fans as well.
Yet there really aren't that many design flaws, such as gaping holes in the math (I'm looking at you BAB) or horribly underpowered classes (the monk, the rogue, the sorcerer of v3.5) or instant-character death (7th level and up wizard spells, diseases, negative levels, ability score drain/damage, paralyzing poisons) that are rampant in older edtions and in PF. These are Flaws of the game. What 4E did was create options that disagreed with people. They didn't like the AEDU mechanic, they didn't like Fighters and Rogues and Monks having nice things, they didn't like Wizards not pwning encounters by 11th level, they didn't like a more focused account of combat and less mechanics to hold your hand for non-combative applications. These aren't flaws in the mechanical sense, just different tastes that don't suit people.
I have said before there is nothing in 4e that I thought improved the game other than the DDI, which is system independent. Yet I feel no excitement about WOTC giving older fans what they want. I have Pathfinder now, I don't need then to release the 3rd edition mechanics again. I wouldn't bother playing it.I would be interested in revisiting the AD&D style. I could trade off playing Pathfinder with AD&D. With that said I think WOTC should cater to the people that support them. They made a terrible mistake with 4e and lost a good share of the market. Still the people that 4e fits will want that game and WOTC should support it. Reverting back will fix nothing.
The only thing Wotc has over Paizo is MAgic the Gathering and rights to a D&D brand. These days the D&D brand isn't all its cracked up to be.
I'm perfectly fine with them supportind other editions, always have been. It might bite them on the butt as I believe they just can't support multiple editions of their own game with new and updated support. But re-releasing older material in PDFs is a great way to boost sales.
As for improvements on the game, that's all based on opinion. But I don't know too many players that are happy with failing a Fort save and falling victim to a paralyzing poison and then being Coup de Grace for instant-death or doing nothing but sit there while eveyone else plays 'cuz your character can't make additional Fort saves to get up. I don't know too many players that are happy to see their character turned to Stone, Baleful Poloymorphed, or Disintegrated. Or have to spend $10,000 on a diamond just to be brought back to life with an automatic level drop. Or have to consistantly change their character sheets to reflect Enlarge Person/Shink Person, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enervation, etc. Those are just a few aspects that I shy away from at the table based on ease of the game for myself as a DM or player and everyone else. Also, summoning. PF did a nice thing by allowing you to print the sheets of summon monsters but before, the player had to do all the adjustments and changes and what a crap-shoot that was. None of those things appeal to a good portion of players and I find their removal nothing short of wonderful.
I'm perfectly fine with them supportind other editions, always have been. It might bite them on the butt as I believe they just can't support multiple editions of their own game with new and updated support. But re-releasing older material in PDFs is a great way to boost sales.
I'm certainly not opposed to it. I just don't think at this point it can be pulled off well. If Pathfinder was never developed, it certainly could have. I know of a few people that would love to have 3.5 back over pathfinder, but I think a majority of those folks were converted. Remaking third edition right now would bust them.
The OSRIC market does not seem to be huge. I am not sure how many people would convert BACK to an old style game. if there is any truth to modern rules truly being up to date, than this is a tough job to pull off.
I am envisioning WOTC releasing some sort of Tinker toy set that lets you make your own D&D. I am not sure how this would work. DDI is a money maker for them. DDI would need a serious overhaul, because if I was going to play my tinker toy 2nd edition + 3rd edition, well I want that to be supported. I want to use DDI with it, and I want supporting supplements. I am taking part a from 2nd edition, part b from 3rd and I want it all with the ease of 4e. Is that going to happen? then have it be supported without fracturing their product line? If I could figure that little grail out I will be a millionaire. So far I have no advice to sell to WOTC, because it seems like a long shot that is hard.
As a TSR fan that left WOTC at 4e, if they improve the 3rd edition game I love, it has to be STRIDES better than Pathfinder for me to convert. A remake of 2nd and old school mixed with 4e? Maybe.
All those things Mearls said in the article are things I said out of the starting gate after playing it for a few months. What bothers me about it, is if he thought there were all these design flaws why did they go ahead with the project?That's basically what I'm saying as well. The problems with 4E (whatever one thinks they may be) are problems with 4E, not the RPG industry, not RPG gamers, not a fractured environment and so on.
What will be very interesting to me is, lets say WoTC releases 5E (or whatever they call it) in 2013, will a substantial number of players continue to play 4E anyway or will it just dry up? When 5E is released can anyone envision a "4th edition grognard" demographic being formed? I doubt it.
I want to call this in case WOTC does this stupid move...
If they pull the rug out from the 4e community and stop making 4e or something very close to it, D&D as a viable table top brand is OVER. If they leave current fans in the dust again to try to attain the old D&D market the table top brand for D&D is over. Hello board game and video games, made with the support from MtG Dollars.
If Paizo did not come along, WOTC would have no trouble recovering fans. I think the 800 pound Gorilla now has to fight the 650 pound pound gorilla who is still growing up.
|
I do agree that 4e will be the forgotten edition remembered by D&D historians only. Paizo has the mechanically complex and somethings not fun 3/3.5e D&D market sewn up. I see no point in trying to 'put the coke back in the bottle' (if you get what I mean). So they either continue with 4e and modify, again (see Essentials), or perhaps tap into the Grognard and Grognard Curious market. By that I mean look at a d20 version of 1e/2e. That is not 3/3.5e by the way, 3/3.5e looks NOTHING like AD&D and feels NOTHING like AD&D. Old school with a modern spin - look at the core of 1e/2e and KEEP IT. The marketing campaign would sell itself.
There are calls for a Pathfinder Basic (not starter set) - strangely enough D&D could fill this niche - well reclaim this niche. Sort of like the 'good old days' of AD&D vs Rolemaster only now it'll be D&D vs Pathfinder.
I have enjoyed many a game of 4e (actually more so under Essentials), but I won't be crying myself to sleep if it goes away.
S.
I think Essentials was a throwback move for the 3.5 crowd (and a stupid one at that), by moving towards basic abilities and just spamming the same basic attack over and over.
I think (as is spelled out much better in my profile) that every edition has evolved and become better than the one before.
Vancian magic gone, it's about time, there have been people trying to introduce different methods as far back as long as I have been playing.
Balance, FINALLY, 3.x tried by putting everyone on the same XP rate, but the difference was there for a reason. It was there to make it hard for the wizards to become godlike, without NEEDING other members.
That brings up the fleshing out of the roles. You mean I don't have to suffer through a party of Lone-wolves that don't have to work together because all their options allowed them to stand alone. Great, I now have a group of PC's that don't play well with others, because they don't have to.
I think Legendarius said it best in his list of what the company needs to do. The problem is not with the edition, as far as I'm concerned 4E is the best incarnation thus far, the problem is how to move forward from this point.
Paizo has it right, not because PF (3.75) is all that, but because they put out a lot of product that makes you want to play in their world. Do I want to play in or run one of the well-written AP's. It's easier to do using PF. Do they have a well fleshed out, and supported game world, where not everything is new rules, most definitely. When I play PF, it is only due to it being easier to use their ruleset I'm not a fan of, than convert it to the much smoother, more playable system of 4E.
If WOTC would just focus on fleshing out their adventures and their game worlds (and ideally choose different ones. I've HATED FR and Eberron almost from the start, regardless of edition.) They would probably see more business. They have a great, clean ruleset out there, forget those that haven't made the change, you're most likely not getting them back, stop pining for the lost lover. Instead create something memorable that uses the outstanding rules you made, that will make people want to use the system, to more easily digest the material.
I want 4E modules as well done as the PF AP's, so I don't have to convert them each time to my favorite edition.
|
|
Jeff Dee had a post on FB recently about the difference between the health of the gaming hobby vs. the health of the gaming industry...rather than link to it and hope for the best, I'm going to paste it behind a spoiler tag:
Tabletop role-playing is primarily a hobby about *making your own fun*. Once you’ve got a set of rules that you like, and enough dice and miniatures and whatnot, you are good to go. You never NEED to spend another penny. So I’m thinking that perhaps the idea of ‘big’ role-playing game publishers was a pipe-dream that never really made any sense to begin with, and that all this stuff about how the HOBBY is in danger is just a last ditch desperate attempt by dying publishers to convince the hobby that we need them.
There *is* a legitimate concern over how to keep the hobby going in the long-term. It’s important to keep current gamers excited and engaged, and it’s important to bring in new and especially younger players. The only sense in which the health of the gaming publishers is relevant to that effort is that weak publishers will have less ability to promote the hobby. But looking back, it doesn’t seem to me that the publishers were EVER the major force in that regard, even when they were raking in more dough. Its always been the gamers themselves who brought in new blood. Traditionally, this happened in high schools and colleges. If the hobby really faces any danger, its that so few of us are high school or college age now – and as a result, fewer new people are being exposed to the joy of gaming.
Here’s MY recipe for keeping the hobby going:
1) If you have kids, turn them into gamers. And support them when they want to go off and game with their friends.
2) If you have an ongoing group, bring in new blood. If your group is ever in danger of becoming ‘too big’ – GREAT! It means you’re successfully growing the hobby. Let the group split into two. And then both groups will grow, and split, and so on and so on.
3) Attend gaming conventions. Your mere physical presence is part of a message to the world that gaming is still alive & kicking. Plus, you’ll have fun.
4) Support your local gaming store, if you’re lucky enough to still have one. Gaming stores are still the primary public face of the hobby. Many of them offer gaming tables. Go there. Meet other gamers. Play. Spend some money.
5) Don’t allow the fact that you play different systems to be a barrier between yourself and other gamers. 90% of what we do around a gaming table is THE SAME, whether we play V&V 2.1 or D&D 4 or Traveller or Vampire: the Masquerade or TOON or whatever. If you’re going to be tribal about your gaming, let your tribe be the GAMERS tribe, not just a tribe that plays your system of choice.
And those are my grumpy early-morning thoughts.
Basically, running off of Aardvark Barbarian's closing comment, I agree...PF is a success in very large part because Paizo provides things to do with the rules system--a campaign world with room for a lot of cool stuff, APs by highly creative people, etc. It seems to me that for some reason WotC was stuck thinking that they could reuse the 1e business model and succeed, and not realizing that 1e did as well as it did just selling rulebooks because the RPG hobby was growing exponentially into untapped territory. That's not going to happen again. Sell someone a rulebook and they don't need anything else from you--that's Dee's point. Sell them a rulebook and the first piece of a world they can play in using that rulebook and if it's good they'll buy the next piece, and the one after that, and the rulebook supplement they need to play in the third piece...that's a business model. Tie that together with DDI and you've got a decent revenue stream. But you need to invest in the creative talent to build those worlds, and these days I don't think WotC can afford the talent to create and support as many worlds as TSR had in the heyday of 2e. (That, btw, is another brilliancy that Paizo seems to have perpetrated--if they can only support one campaign world, make it big enough and broad enough to be able to cover lots of stories. Thus, no real need for multiple independent worlds.)
Mearls is saying the mistake with 4e is that it's too focused on the player. By trying to compete with video games they just proved video games were better. Because video games don't need those pesky dungeonmasters.
So what can't video games do? They can't let you be the dungeonmaster. So now WOTC is going to focus on the Dungeonmaster.
Get ready for a rules lite system governed largely by dm fiat.
|
Mearls is saying the mistake with 4e is that it's too focused on the player. By trying to compete with video games they just proved video games were better. Because video games don't need those pesky dungeonmasters.
So what can't video games do? They can't let you be the dungeonmaster. So now WOTC is going to focus on the Dungeonmaster.
Get ready for a rules lite system governed largely by dm fiat.
Somewhere between Monte's posts and results of polls there (on GM role/power) I feel this coming.
Player Advocacy Movement will have a busy year or two ;-)
I think Essentials was a throwback move for the 3.5 crowd (and a stupid one at that), by moving towards basic abilities and just spamming the same basic attack over and over.
I think (as is spelled out much better in my profile) that every edition has evolved and become better than the one before.
Vancian magic gone, it's about time, there have been people trying to introduce different methods as far back as long as I have been playing.
Balance, FINALLY, 3.x tried by putting everyone on the same XP rate, but the difference was there for a reason. It was there to make it hard for the wizards to become godlike, without NEEDING other members.
That brings up the fleshing out of the roles. You mean I don't have to suffer through a party of Lone-wolves that don't have to work together because all their options allowed them to stand alone. Great, I now have a group of PC's that don't play well with others, because they don't have to.
I think Legendarius said it best in his list of what the company needs to do. The problem is not with the edition, as far as I'm concerned 4E is the best incarnation thus far, the problem is how to move forward from this point.
Paizo has it right, not because PF (3.75) is all that, but because they put out a lot of product that makes you want to play in their world. Do I want to play in or run one of the well-written AP's. It's easier to do using PF. Do they have a well fleshed out, and supported game world, where not everything is new rules, most definitely. When I play PF, it is only due to it being easier to use their ruleset I'm not a fan of, than convert it to the much smoother, more playable system of 4E.
If WOTC would just focus on fleshing out their adventures and their game worlds (and ideally choose different ones. I've HATED FR and Eberron almost from the start, regardless of edition.) They would probably see more business. They have a great, clean ruleset out there, forget those that haven't made the change, you're most likely not getting them back, stop...
I disagree. Sorry if my bias isn't as thinly veiled.
The only thing I agree with you on, is that the actual edition is not WotC's problem, it's how to move it forward. They sort of painted themselves into a corner, where no matter what they do, they're going to piss somebody off.
The future of D&D is going to rely on change. Drastic, bloody, painful change, but change that's needed. No, I'm not inferring a new edition, I'm talking about how the current edition is handled, and how they can continue it. They chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and for what it's worth they've garnered a lot of fans in the process. They made some very bold moves with this edition, so now that a few years have passed, it's time to consider "what next?"
They have a tight ruleset, they just need to get their heads together and push this thing forward. I see far, far too much second-guessing, backpedaling, and insecure decision making going on at WotC. Time to straighten out their course and get back on track.
I happen to be one of those "lost loves." I love the D&D brand. As great as Pathfinder rules are, they aren't D&D. It's not the same, and I miss it. I WANT the next step for WotC to be awesome. I was not thrilled about 4e, but I am eager to see what comes next. If the next phase, be it 4e or whatever, is cool enough, I'll come back, and I'll bring as many other old "lost loves" with me as I can.
I think Essentials was a throwback move for the 3.5 crowd (and a stupid one at that), by moving towards basic abilities and just spamming the same basic attack over and over.
I think (as is spelled out much better in my profile) that every edition has evolved and become better than the one before.
While I agree with you that Essentials are throw backs to those with more conservative views about the game, I don't think they play poorly or are boing. The Knight, for example, is a personal favorite of mine that really "Gets" a concept I invisioned for a character I was using. As they can take feats to obtain true Fighter "powers", it makes power-selection much easier. Also, they work amazingly well with Warlords. Also, I rather enjoy the Hexblade and Blackguard, both of which work of the "Essential" chassis.
Vancian magic gone, it's about time, there have been people trying to introduce different methods as far back as long as I have been playing.
Vancian magical is still sorta there, espically as wizards still need their spellbooks to study and it requires a full resting peroid to regain their "Daily" powers. In fact, the Vancian-system has been spread out to any class requiring Daily powers.
Paizo has it right, not because PF (3.75) is all that, but because they put out a lot of product that makes you want to play in their world. Do I want to play in or run one of the well-written AP's. It's easier to do using PF. Do they have a well fleshed out, and supported game world, where not everything is new rules, most definitely. When I play PF, it is only due to it being easier to use their ruleset I'm not a fan of, than convert it to the much smoother, more playable system of 4E.If WOTC would just focus on fleshing out their adventures and their game worlds (and ideally choose different ones. I've HATED FR and Eberron almost from the start, regardless of edition.) They would probably see more business. They have a great, clean ruleset out there, forget those that haven't made the change, you're most likely not getting them back, stop pining for the lost lover. Instead create something memorable that uses the outstanding rules you made, that will make people want to use the system, to more easily digest the material.
Yea, but we did see some aspects of their PoL world through Backdrop articles in DDI. Not saying that was enough, far from it, but I had hoped it was a testing ground for possible future products. I'd actually really like to see a fully completed campaign setting about the PoL world (Conquests of Nerath) including Bael Turath, Nerath, and the Nentir Vale being great focus points. More of that would go a long way of really showcasing what the system has to offer IMO.
If WOTC would just focus on fleshing out their adventures and their game worlds (and ideally choose different ones. I've HATED FR and Eberron almost from the start, regardless of edition.) They would probably see more business. They have a great, clean ruleset out there, forget those that haven't made the change, you're most likely not getting them back, stop pining for the lost lover. Instead create something memorable that uses the outstanding rules you made, that will make people want to use the system, to more easily digest the material.
I want 4E modules as well done as the PF AP's, so I don't have to convert them each time to my favorite edition.
Pretty much agree with this. That said some of the biggest issues I have with WotCs products are that they often seem to have little real understanding of what the system can do and therefore how to best leverage some of its strengths.
For example 4E is excellent at handling things like higher level murder mysteries or political intrigues. However such adventures are few and far between. Instead we are deluged with adventures that often read like slightly spruced up delves. While there is nothing inherently wrong with a delve its not something that really generates much buzz and its extremely easy for a DM to make that sort of adventure in 4E in any case.
Better to offer a more eclectic mix of adventures and really let some of the more talented writers (often free lancers) loose to push the envelope. There will always be room for a good old hack heavy D&D adventure but I want to see more adventures that feel like they could have come from an episode of Law & Order: Swords and Sorcery or explore other more complex themes.
At a fundamental core rules level the system supports the style very well but one still needs to hire the writer to think up the shocking plot twist and that writer needs to understand the system well enough to be able to translate the ramifications of that plot twist into 4E mechanics.
Unfortunately I generally think Mike Mearls is not the right person for this job. His favorite kind of D&D is the dungeon with fantastic monsters and cunning traps. Nothing wrong with that style, The well received Castle Maure is just this type of adventure. Unfortunately that style of game, while possible, tends to play to 4Es weak points and not its strengths. Something like Murder at Oakbridge or maybe a kind of idealized version of Castle Ravenloft, but with less combats then the original I6 - but make them bigger and have them range all over half a floor (or up and down one of the towers) with lots of interactive elements, play to its strengths.
I noticed when doing Age of Worms conversions that the adventures worked best when I seriously reduced the total number of encounters but made the ones that did take place large and complex I generally had much better results then when I allowed and adventure to turn into combat encounter followed by combat encounter repeatedly.
4E is very good at doing flashy combats with lots of movement and special moves but such scenes are also, in terms of pacing, pretty exhausting. Trying to string them together generally does not give anywhere as good results as spacing them out more with significant plot and narrative in between.
The problem from my perspective is that WotC rarely seems to appreciate this. We have a system where even at 15th level the skill system is still the dominant method for ferreting out the clues for the murder mystery and where the group is forced to interact with the NPC cast of the adventure and yet there are very few adventures that support these elements.
And believe me, if WotC goes under, there's nothing stopping 4vengers from re-creating the 4e game through the OGL, just as old-schoolers do with the old editions.
Since 4E is protected by the GSL, I'm not entirely sure 3PP using 4E material after D&D "dies" would be legal. I'm not a lawyer and only have a thin understanding of what the GSL really allows/not allows people to do with the system, but can't they (WotC) say Yes or No to 3PP material that all signed under the GSL?
Also, from reading the Open Liscens product I have, they never fully detail WotC "official" 4E material in their supplements. It's always a reference to what document (like p. 3 of the PHB or such-and-such monster from Open Grave, p. 134) a source might be used or the monsters used therein are completly their own design.
I just find this sort of thing a bit difficult to keep going and starting for new players that might not have access to these supplments that are running out of print.
|
|
Between the way GSL is worded and the DDI, WotC made pretty sure that they will not repeat the "OGL mistake" - pulling a plug on 4E is as easy as terminating the GSL and switching DDI to the new edition - I'm pretty sure most folks will just give up and switch over if they can't any more use the 4E Character Builder.
|
|
And believe me, if WotC goes under, there's nothing stopping 4vengers from re-creating the 4e game through the OGL, just as old-schoolers do with the old editions.
Since 4E is protected by the GSL, I'm not entirely sure 3PP using 4E material after D&D "dies" would be legal. I'm not a lawyer and only have a thin understanding of what the GSL really allows/not allows people to do with the system, but can't they (WotC) say Yes or No to 3PP material that all signed under the GSL?
Also, from reading the Open Liscens product I have, they never fully detail WotC "official" 4E material in their supplements. It's always a reference to what document (like p. 3 of the PHB or such-and-such monster from Open Grave, p. 134) a source might be used or the monsters used therein are completly their own design.
I just find this sort of thing a bit difficult to keep going and starting for new players that might not have access to these supplments that are running out of print.
I think the OP's point is that just as retroclones like Swords & Wizardry and Osric (simulating OD&D and 1E, respectively) can be made under the OGL, it's possible to create a 4E clone in the same way. It'd nominally be restricted to OGL monsters, but the clone publisher would have no way to control what individual GMs did with their product (wink, wink).
Gorbacz is right in that DDI functionality would be lost, though; since I don't play 4E myself (or much of anything FTF, these days), I have no idea how important that would be.
|
Mr. Mearls is a funny guy. He seems to be doing a lot of hand-wringing about the tabletop RPG industry and tabletop RPG gamers in general yet Paizo seems to have figured it all out just fine. He's got a weird psychological "Pathfinder blind-spot".
Also, whats with Mr. Dancey chiming in with the "I think the tabletop RPG market is enduring a kind of death." Hey! Holy back-stab dude! Didn't you just license the Pathfinder tabletop RPG name for an online game and get the majority of your funding from a tabletop RPG company?? Way to bite the hand.
You're talking about the man whose first idea to save the Living City campaign was to level Ravens Bluff to the ground.
Personally, it could be that the whole idea of class-based roleplaying is hitting a low spot. That's happened before when people left the game wholesale for more narrative systems like White Wolf and a whole bunch of non-D&D games that sprang up during the 2nd edition era.
Wouldn't be surprised if this were true. The Indie RPG push has been big over the past couple years. The talk of last year was the popularity of FATE-based games. Haven't seen any proof yet that this has ended. Strands of Fate is still running strong enough to see a second full-sized book. People have short attention spans, for which class based systems are perfect because you can sum up your character in just a few words. "Elf Rogue" "Lawful Evil Human Wizard" "Zen Archer Monk". FATE keeps the advantage of not having to write a dissertation on a character just to know what your attack roll is, but now players can use any word the DM approves. The restriction of class systems is gone without losing the convenience.
A 'pretense of simulation' is about right for 3e. It does pretend to be simulating something, though what is very hard to identify. Certainly not anything I've ever read, including D&D novels.
Even the hardcore Simulationist advocates admit that RPGs will only ever achieve verisimilitude, not realism. However, 3E, as compared to 4E, was driven more by internally consistent in-world physics than 4E. There is no believable reason that a Fighter cannot swing a sword in a special way more than once a day. In 3E, a Fighter could use their class abilities every round, all day, unless there was a specific cost involved that the game made an attempt to explain in-world. 4E abandoned even this *attempt* to create something believable. Much larger portions of the 4E world work in ways that are not consistent with the laws of fantasy physics. Fighters can only swing their sword a special way once a fight or once a day. No attempt is made to explain why.
3E/PF are certainly NOT the most simulationist games out there. I think that crown goes to GURPS, or maybe Traveller. I'm just saying that 3E was far more simulationist than 4E, and taking a few more leaps and bounds away from that stance put some people off. Myself included.
I think the OP's point is that just as retroclones like Swords & Wizardry and Osric (simulating OD&D and 1E, respectively) can be made under the OGL, it's possible to create a 4E clone in the same way. It'd nominally be restricted to OGL monsters, but the clone publisher would have no way to control what individual GMs did with their product (wink, wink).
Gorbacz is right in that DDI functionality would be lost, though; since I don't play 4E myself (or much of anything FTF, these days), I have no idea how important that would be.
Well if something could be made like a retroclone for 4E if 5E is not to my tastes, that would be excellent indeed. DDI would cross over, and that would be a shame but it's not required to play 4E. It's a great tool for searching specific items in a few seconds as opposed to minutes or hours pouring over book. Additionally, the CB is great and all but not really necessary for the game to keep going.
A 'pretense of simulation' is about right for 3e. It does pretend to be simulating something, though what is very hard to identify. Certainly not anything I've ever read, including D&D novels.Even the hardcore Simulationist advocates admit that RPGs will only ever achieve verisimilitude, not realism. However, 3E, as compared to 4E, was driven more by internally consistent in-world physics than 4E. There is no believable reason that a Fighter cannot swing a sword in a special way more than once a day. In 3E, a Fighter could use their class abilities every round, all day, unless there was a specific cost involved that the game made an attempt to explain in-world. 4E abandoned even this *attempt* to create something believable. Much larger portions of the 4E world work in ways that are not consistent with the laws of fantasy physics. Fighters can only swing their sword a special way once a fight or once a day. No attempt is made to explain why.
3E/PF are certainly NOT the most simulationist games out there. I think that crown goes to GURPS, or maybe Traveller. I'm just saying that 3E was far more simulationist than 4E, and taking a few more leaps and bounds away from that stance put some people off. Myself included.
This is because the game is abstract enough for the player to really add any reason for these limited mechanics they want. Harder moves (such as dailies) require significantly more exertion of your muscles. Like an all-out-sprint or a 1-rep Max bench press, your body can only handle so much before it needs rest. OR it's a situational thing, using a daily power requires extreme focus and the right timing to pull off, something that you might only force to happen once in a while. It puts the "Whys" on the player instead of forcing the system to do it.
Also, I'm not saying one is right or wrong or better than the other, just a different perspective about something that's abstract as combat attacks and maneuvers with "Gamish" qualities.
|
|
This is because the game is abstract enough for the player to really add any reason for these limited mechanics they want. Harder moves (such as dailies) require significantly more exertion of your muscles. Like an all-out-sprint or a 1-rep Max bench press, your body can only handle so much before it needs rest. OR it's a situational thing, using a daily power requires extreme focus and the right timing to pull off, something that you might only force to happen once in a while. It puts the "Whys" on the player instead of forcing the system to do it.
I point it out because it is a major departure from what everyone has come to expect from the past three editions, like a lot of the other sacred cow slaying. The difference is that it's not a D&D sacred cow in this case, the element of justifying and explaining everything is a sacred cow of most of the early games of the hobby, invented by recently-converted wargamers who are interested in tactical challenges generated not from a set of consistent game rules but instead from a set of consistent rules for an alternate reality.
The narrative generation held up this expectation. If you look at the Old World of Darkness, the rules for most of those games are actually much more consistent and simulation based than 4E, or FATE, or any modern game that rejects simulation, even though WW is supposed to be the touchy-feely narrative game - there are still tables to tell you how many successes on a die roll translates to how many feet you can jump or how quickly you can hack into the Pentagon. Both FATE and 4E abandon this in favor of allowing the GM and players to negotiate some sort of explanation that makes sense to them.
I just happen to prefer the "rulebook explains the rules of reality" method myself, but that's why I'm planning PF and Traveller campaigns... : )
|
|
There is no believable reason that a Fighter cannot swing a sword in a special way more than once a day.
As Diffan has already stated, there are several believable reasons that a Fighter can only perform a certain move once a day or once a fight - for example the same reason a fighter in 3e can't pull off a critical hit every swing - circumstances conspire to not allow that more than every 1 in 20 or so swings. 4e just changes the dice deciding when this occurs to letting the players decide.
Now I can agree that 4e maybe didn't provide these believable reasons clearly enough* but that is a different thing entirely - for example Pathfinder doesn't really give a reason why a Barbarian can only Rage a limited amount of time each day, but I am sure you can come up with explanations as to why that is.
*The PHB merely states for Encounter martial powers that these "are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while" and for Dailies states "you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit."
|
|
There is no believable reason that a Fighter cannot swing a sword in a special way more than once a day.As Diffan has already stated, there are several believable reasons that a Fighter can only perform a certain move once a day or once a fight - for example the same reason a fighter in 3e can't pull off a critical hit every swing - circumstances conspire to not allow that more than every 1 in 20 or so swings. 4e just changes the dice deciding when this occurs to letting the players decide.
Now I can agree that 4e maybe didn't provide these believable reasons clearly enough* but that is a different thing entirely - for example Pathfinder doesn't really give a reason why a Barbarian can only Rage a limited amount of time each day, but I am sure you can come up with explanations as to why that is.
*The PHB merely states for Encounter martial powers that these "are exploits you’ve practiced extensively but can pull off only once in a while" and for Dailies states "you’re reaching into your deepest reserves of energy to pull off an amazing exploit."
It requires more justifying than someone getting tired after putting forth a minute or so of great effort, just like the book does not need to justify why it has a rule about getting tired after sleeping, or justifying the weight of all of the items in the equipment chapter.
But I'll admit, the simulationist constraints have weakened slightly from 3E to PF. For page and word count, descriptions have been cut here and there. I think the 3E PHB had a much longer section justifying why casters needed to prepare spells, and that's what many 4E detractors were comparing 4E to.
It requires more justifying than someone getting tired after putting forth a minute or so of great effort, just like the book does not need to justify why it has a rule about getting tired after sleeping, or justifying the weight of all of the items in the equipment chapter.But I'll admit, the simulationist constraints have weakened slightly from 3E to PF. For page and word count, descriptions have been cut here and there. I think the 3E PHB had a much longer section justifying why casters needed to prepare spells, and that's what many 4E detractors were comparing 4E to.
No contest that they're different, but the real question is "Is this truely required to be in the game rules?[/i] Do we require the rules to say "This is why you can only rage Once per day or use Stunning Fist twice per day" in an attempt to creatue verisimilitude in a world where wizards reverse gravity at a whim? To me it's hyprocritical to put those restrictions on one faucet of the game while nothing is required of the other except the simple explination "well, it's Magic".
|
|
No contest that they're different, but the real question is "Is this truely required to be in the game rules?[/i] Do we require the rules to say "This is why you can only rage Once per day or use Stunning Fist twice per day" in an attempt to creatue verisimilitude in a world where wizards reverse gravity at a whim? To me it's hyprocritical to put those restrictions on one faucet of the game while nothing is required of the other except the simple explination "well, it's Magic".
It requires more justifying than someone getting tired after putting forth a minute or so of great effort, just like the book does not need to justify why it has a rule about getting tired after sleeping, or justifying the weight of all of the items in the equipment chapter.But I'll admit, the simulationist constraints have weakened slightly from 3E to PF. For page and word count, descriptions have been cut here and there. I think the 3E PHB had a much longer section justifying why casters needed to prepare spells, and that's what many 4E detractors were comparing 4E to.
Even magic often has rules, or an explanation. Arcane magic is often explained as exploiting loopholes in reality, and divine magic is often explained as channeling the power of the gods. That's more simulationist than saying "Your cleric prays and stuff happens, but we'll let you come up with the details". More detailed sorts of explanations enhance the believability of the game world, because much like the real world, it gives us something to depend upon, and makes the exceptions more special than relying entirely on group-negotiated interpretation.
Even magic often has rules, or an explanation. Arcane magic is often explained as exploiting loopholes in reality, and divine magic is often explained as channeling the power of the gods. That's more simulationist than saying "Your cleric prays and stuff happens, but we'll let you come up with the details". More detailed sorts of explanations enhance the believability of the game world, because much like the real world, it gives us something to depend upon, and makes the exceptions more special than relying entirely on group-negotiated interpretation.
Magic has an interpretation of how it works in said fictional world. Exploiting loopholes of reality and being channeled with god's divine power are excepted methoids to demonstrate how this works, yet it's not realistic by any sense of the means. Yet people are OK with that because it's a game. We then apply our real-life sciences and physics to those who don't have the "magic escapist" clause and expect them to adhere strictly to what we preceive as real. That's not really fair is it? To apply our own real-world theories of science and physics because it's happend here (ex. a 13th century roman soldier swinging a sword) and except that the same aspect would be applied and function in a non-real setting. Simulationists require these classes to adhere to our own world's expectations because how could it be any different on Oerth or Faerûn? Yet don't bat an eye when a wizards throws a ball of fire using some words and a pinch of bat-dung.
|
|
Magic has an interpretation of how it works in said fictional world. Exploiting loopholes of reality and being channeled with god's divine power are excepted methoids to demonstrate how this works, yet it's not realistic by any sense of the means. Yet people are OK with that because it's a game. We then apply our real-life sciences and physics to those who don't have the "magic escapist" clause and expect them to adhere strictly to what we preceive as real. That's not really fair is it? To apply our own real-world theories of science and physics because it's happend here (ex. a 13th century roman soldier swinging a sword) and except that the same aspect would be applied and function in a non-real setting. Simulationists require these classes to adhere to our own world's expectations because how could it be any different on Oerth or Faerûn? Yet don't bat an eye when a wizards throws a ball of fire using some words and a pinch of bat-dung.Even magic often has rules, or an explanation. Arcane magic is often explained as exploiting loopholes in reality, and divine magic is often explained as channeling the power of the gods. That's more simulationist than saying "Your cleric prays and stuff happens, but we'll let you come up with the details". More detailed sorts of explanations enhance the believability of the game world, because much like the real world, it gives us something to depend upon, and makes the exceptions more special than relying entirely on group-negotiated interpretation.
The key is verisimilitude. No magic will be fully realistic. What some people (myself included) are interested in is an internally consisten fantasy world where events are justified, so that nothing that happens feels like it is a TV Trope pulled out of a hat and powered by plot or GM fiat. It's a playstyle, a roleplaying approach preferred by some. I also like playing video games sometimes, and accept that there's no good reason that spin-kicking something drains my mana, or why I get more "rage" from hitting an NPC than I do from reading 5 lines of Barrens chat.
On another note...
I think both approaches are actually going to be scaled back for 5th Edition. There's a lot of hints in Legends and Lore and some other statements and trends that hints that the next D&D will be minimalist, with a lot of extra modules for those who care to use them. I do worry about the modularity, though, in relation to what Mr. Dancey said on ENWorld about the way that the industry and the hobby work. To paraphrase, the survival of the industry is dependent on a strong community rallying around easily recognized and widely liked brands, like say, D&D, or Pathfinder, and anything that dilutes the identity of a brand is going to hurt it. I wonder if WotC's going to miss that message. In a modular D&D, my experience playing crunch-heavy, highly simulationist D&D might look nothing like someone else's core rules only, mostly narrative experience. We already have that in PF. Ask ten PF players about UM/UC/the APG and I bet half of them will start talking about how great they are, the other half will swear never to go beyond the core.
Right now we have system wars - I wave the flag of 3.5/PF and people immediately assume I'm in favor of lots of rules, optimized 'builds', and similar things. I can assume the 1E player likes a simpler, more GM-defined game. If there was a D&D with modular, optional rules, we would all play D&D, but every group would play a different D&D. Wizards might be trying to please all of the people all of the time.
I removed a post. That was unnecessary.
And even Scott doesn't rally to defend the barricades anymore... Poor 4E.
When I see something worth rallying over, I will. I'm not going to get up in arms over comments that everyone already knows are bunk, though. There's too much pointless, ingrained anti-4e hostility in this community to bother trying to set the record straight every time it's set wrong.
And even Scott doesn't rally to defend the barricades anymore... Poor 4E.When I see something worth rallying over, I will. I'm not going to get up in arms over comments that everyone already knows are bunk, though. There's too much pointless, ingrained anti-4e hostility in this community to bother trying to set the record straight every time it's set wrong.
Why do you believe that? I have my opinions of the game, and I have ran it. And I had problems with it. I don't like it, but I certainly don't hate it. 4e doesn't jive with me, I have deep problems dealing with roleplaying with the game.
|
|
Why cant we all get along? If you like 4E then play your game dont bash PF. If you like PF dont bash 4E. You don't have to like business choices or choices companies make. Why not simply play both games and enjoy them. Play in Pathfinder Society once a week, then show up at a DnD encounter. Its time the community comes together..."only a fool fights in a burning house" Long live PF&4E.
Ash
Why do you believe that? I have my opinions of the game, and I have ran it. And I had problems with it. I don't like it, but I certainly don't hate it. 4e doesn't jive with me, I have deep problems dealing with roleplaying with the game.
I'm sorry to hear that. 4e is a great system. It's a shame that you weren't able to figure out how to make it work for you.
The key is verisimilitude. No magic will be fully realistic. What some people (myself included) are interested in is an internally consisten fantasy world where events are justified, so that nothing that happens feels like it is a TV Trope pulled out of a hat and powered by plot or GM fiat. It's a playstyle, a roleplaying approach preferred by some...
For me this depends a lot at the angle we view the verisimilitude from. In some sense what is it that we are trying to simulate. Are we trying to see what a fantasy combat might look like over all or are we looking at what might be possible by physics at any given point in time?
For example there was a chain tripping fighter in my last 3.5 campaign and what he did every round was spin in circle tripping every enemy within 15 feet of him, knocking them prone and then smacking them. I've seen a martial character do that in 4E as well though with a spear. Everyone within 15 feet that he hit gets smacked to the ground. Thing is in 4E that happens once or twice in a fight (because it costs a power). In 3.5 the chain tripping fighter was a perpetual motion tripping machine spinning on and endless loop. Nor was this the only martial build like that. All of them where designed so that, after the first few levels, they performed something that looked like a superheroic feat of skill and effort and then they did pretty much that over and over again in perpetuity every round.
I even got to see this effect in action side by side in 4E since Essentials returned to a model where the martial characters have one move and players build up that one move with feats to make it ever more awesome. So we had our monk with his array of abilities that might see everyone around him getting smacked and falling down or maybe he leaps fifteen feet across the room connects with a baddie who flies 10 feet backward smacking into a wall etc.
Then there was the Essentials Charging Thief, a build that seemed to me to be pretty much a mirror of a charging Scout/Fighter I had seen in 3.5. What he does is he charges into combat and kaboom a ton of hps worth of damage are done. Then he uses feats etc. on his next turn - runs away then turns around and Charge - Kaboom again...and again...and again etc.
Neither are realistic but the monk looked like he was straight out of a Jackie Chan movie (heck the designers probably watched some Jackie Chan movies to get ideas for the monks powers). The Charging Thief actually struck me as far more problematic in terms of verisimilitude, perpetual charge, run away, charge, run away is actually really hard to explain in terms of look and feel despite the idea that if you could do it last round then obviously you can do it this round as well.
The argument seems to be that if a figure skater can do one quadruple axle during her routine she must be able to do quadruple axles on command as often as she wants.
In effect if I am describing a scene from one of the combats it always seemed like it was high octane fantasy but within that context 4Es power dependent classes actually seem more plausible then martial builds designed to do one thing repeatedly and have it that thing souped up with every game resource a player can throw at it.
Hence the verisimilitude depends on the perspective one is looking at it from. Are we viewing this as what a fantasy combat might look like over all? Or are we sitting in our chair wondering why, if Thelgar the Mighty could do the mighty overhand chop last round why can't he do the same thing again this round?
|
|
Between the way GSL is worded and the DDI, WotC made pretty sure that they will not repeat the "OGL mistake" - pulling a plug on 4E is as easy as terminating the GSL and switching DDI to the new edition - I'm pretty sure most folks will just give up and switch over if they can't any more use the 4E Character Builder.
That makes no sense. i play PF without a character builder. By your logic that menas I should give up and switch over to something else. Is the Character builder useful yes. Will it spell the end of 4E or any other rpg hardly.
I'm sorry to hear that. 4e is a great system. It's a shame that you weren't able to figure out how to make it work for you.Scott, why is it when someone doesn't like 4e, you have to imply that they did something wrong? That in this case, the reason Elton doesn't like 4e is because he couldn't "figure it out"?
Scott isn't implying that Elton can't figure out how the system works, as I'm quite sure Elton has the understanding of the mechanics just fine. What he means is that Elton couldn't come up with an enjoyable way of using those mechanics to suit his RP needs.
Between the way GSL is worded and the DDI, WotC made pretty sure that they will not repeat the "OGL mistake" - pulling a plug on 4E is as easy as terminating the GSL and switching DDI to the new edition - I'm pretty sure most folks will just give up and switch over if they can't any more use the 4E Character Builder.That makes no sense. i play PF without a character builder. By your logic that menas I should give up and switch over to something else. Is the Character builder useful yes. Will it spell the end of 4E or any other rpg hardly.
You can do it that is for sure. However I imagine there are people that are quite integrated with DDI that if that went, they very well might switch systems. I do not think that number should be underestimated.
WOTC is in a bind here. Paizo changed the field now. They need to choose their next move very carefully or D&D will simply be a Hasbro brand. They cannot afford to lose the loyalty of their current 4e fan base.
Scott mate, we will be right here with you when WotC axes the 4E DDI, the game's playerbase evaporates and you'll become the DigitalMage of 4E. I promise I won't laugh, really. Unless you'll blame Pathfinder for the state of being, that is :)
Er...I don't plan on ever playing an unsupported version of the game. If official support for 4e ends, I will move on to 5e, whenever that comes around. And, if it doesn't, I'll move on to the next best thing (in my case, probably Pathfinder).
I'm sorry to hear that. 4e is a great system. It's a shame that you weren't able to figure out how to make it work for you.Scott, why is it when someone doesn't like 4e, you have to imply that they did something wrong? That in this case, the reason Elton doesn't like 4e is because he couldn't "figure it out"?
There's a difference between being unable to make the game work, and being unable to make the game work in a way that suits you to a tee. Maybe Elton can't figure 4e out (I've certainly seen a fair number of people who can't), or maybe there just isn't a way to fiddle with it that will make it enjoyable for him. I'm not going to guess at which it is - assuming unkind things about a poster is frowned upon here, unless the poster in question likes 4e.
I just hope I don't have to buy 3 $35.00 dollar books to have the full Player's Handbook, 3 $35.00 books to have the full DM guide, book of magic, Monster manuel, floor mats, figures, etc...To playe a 5th edition. Add all this up and it's just way too much money. Im not going to feed a company this much money just to play D&D. It should be 1 Player's Handbook, 1 DM guide, and 1 monster manuel. That's all it should be to play D&D. I hope D&D doesn't die, but if it does there is plenty of other RPG's out there that will keep me satisfied that are affordable, fun, and fun to read.
Paizo managed to do it right, so I don't see why a giant company like WOTC can't do it. It might be because the ownership of WOTC don't know what they're doing anymore.
|
Paizo managed to do it right, so I don't see why a giant company like WOTC can't do it. It might be because the ownership of WOTC don't know what they're doing anymore.
Paizo is a publishing/gaming company, formed largely from ex-WotC/TSR talent.
WotC is owned by Hasbro, a toy/game company who thinks that every property should be a $100 Million dollar product line (like Magic) even when it's not likely to get there (even if some aspects aped elements of the 12-million subscriber MMOs).
Different mentalities, different approaches, different goals.
And, fwiw, WotC tried something new with 4e, while Paizo jumped into the void 4e created and gathered up all the 3/3.5e gamers who were left behind but still very much into the game they loved--so, in some ways, it was much easier for Paizo to continue with 3.5 OGL era gaming than it was for WotC to try to carve out a new niche with an entirely new game that only has its brand name in common with its predecessor...
And which, through the OGL, is now competing with its former self--4e has to succeed against all its previous product, all the 3P products, and against re-skinned versions of 3.5e in Pathfinder, MC's Arcana, all the OGL-compatible 2e-style Retro-clones, etc.
|
|
Between the way GSL is worded and You can do it that is for sure. However I imagine there are people that are quite integrated with DDI that if that went, they very well might switch systems. I do not think that number should be underestimated.WOTC is in a bind here. Paizo changed the field now. They need to choose their next move very carefully or D&D will simply be a Hasbro brand. They cannot afford to lose the loyalty of their current 4e fan base.
I'm not saying that there will be no impact. Just not the worst case scenario that Gorbacz is implying. I like usig the CB. Before then I used good old fashioned paper and pencil. consodering how notoriously cheap gamers are I would not be surpsed if that is still the case. It's like saying if Paizo took away Lone Wolf right to use the PF licnese in Hero Lab. Would some of the fanbase be angry. Sure they would. would it doom or possibly end Paizo or PF not really.