General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
So everytime we sit down and play 4E, it brings up these feelings of old school goodness, but that's not completely explained by some limited connections to the 1E experience... and then it hit me!
The Heroic / Paragon / Epic approach (with demigods and whatnot) seems to feel straight out of BECMI (or BECM, more accurately). The changing nature of the types of adventures for Paragon and Epic feels much like Mentzer's Companion and Masters sets to me. Every time I consider 4E it feels like a throw-back game - but now I can see it's not so much (for me at least) a throwback to 1E as it is to Basic/Classic D&D and BECMI.
And by all means, continue with the invocation to Sata... err, agreeing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engilbrand
Agreeing on an internet forum will eventually lead to dividing by 0. According to my Calculus professor in college, that's an invitation for Satan to come out of the ground.
Last edited by crash_beedo; 30th October 2008 at 03:29 PM..
Reason: Aldebaran moved in the sky.
So everytime we sit down and play 4E, it brings up these feelings of old school goodness, but that's not completely explained by some limited connections to the 1E experience... and then it hit me!
The Heroic / Paragon / Epic approach (with demigods and whatnot) seems to feel straight out of BECMI (or BECM, more accurately). The changing nature of the types of adventures for Paragon and Epic feels much like Mentzer's Companion and Masters sets to me. Every time I consider 4E it feels like a throw-back game - but now I can see it's not so much (for me at least) a throwback to 1E as it is to Basic/Classic D&D and BECMI.
And by all means, continue with the invocation to Sata... err, agreeing!
I see the connection as a purely "tiers of play" analogy but the feel is entirely different.
In the Mentzer Companion set the challenges got tougher but also broadened in scope. There was land to claim, a dominion to set up, and political intrigue and open warfare were as much a part of the experience as facing tougher bad guys was. The masters set was more of the same, but the political stakes were larger and the consequences of success and failure more far reaching.
D&D 4E pretty much keeps raising the stakes on the outcome of challenges but only from the personal conflicts of the PC's and thier foes. The PC's get tougher and so do the bad guys. The numbers get bigger but everything else stays the same.
I know this is really subjective, but I begin to wonder if people aren't seeing what they want to see regarding the similarities between these two vastly different systems.
This.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Every time I consider 4E it feels like a throw-back game - but now I can see it's not so much (for me at least) a throwback to 1E as it is to Basic/Classic D&D and BECMI.
Yeah this the same for me as well. I don't see the similarities with 1E so much as a seeing 4E as O/B/X on steroids, so to speak.
This is hard for me to put into words ( so please bear with my rambling mess that follows) but there was a far looser feel to the fantasy of OD&D and later B/X- not just rules, but themes of the game- the structure of the "fantasy world" was different- as AD&D came about and the game "matured" much of the fluff and flavor of the game became as tied into to the AD&D experience as the rules themselves- all the naming conventions, the alignment system and the way the planes worked for example- all that fluff became narrowly focused and as much "D&D" as Armor Class or Hit dice. AD&D became it's own brand or type of Fantasy.
O/B/X didn't have those underlying strong "brand themes" (though later BECMI would). It was a mix of all kinds of fantasy influences. 4E has gone back to more of that OBX style classic hodgepodge of fantasy themes/influences vs the classic AD&D defintions we have known the past 30 years or so, and I suspect this is an issue many have with 4E (and may or may not realize it), though I'm sure it's not the only reason for many.
Now some of those influences in 4E are def in the camp of more modern fantasy, as well as modern cinema and not the SAME influences of OBX obviously, but it's a similar end result. I for one (as much as I am a die-hard GH fan,) really enjoying this "re-imagining" because it reminds me of when I was a kid and what our OD&D and later B/X games were like. It was a hodgepodge of influences from D&D abut there was alot of earth mythology, whatever fantasy fiction we managed to get ahold of to read, other game material like Arduin, etc mixed in too (I remember being extremely influenced by watching the old Charleton Heston movie El-Cid, and added a medieval spain like culture into our games).
This hodgepodge is the kind of thing that 1E tried hard to reign in- Gary (and others) made it quite clear the AD&D game needed more structure in rules and the types of worlds created for AD&D, and this narrower focus/structure in AD&D (and 2E, and 3E) lasted a very long time.
Like many of the original D&D players who B&M'ed day in and day out that D&D was not modelling the way (for example) elves, halflings and magic worked in the LOTR trilogy, nowadays many D&D fans are not liking this new "mix" that goes against what has come before. Personally, I'm loving it (and I thought I wouldn't)
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
This is hard for me to put into words ( so please bear with my rambling mess that follows) but there was a far looser feel to the fantasy of OD&D and later B/X- not just rules, but themes of the game- the structure of the "fantasy world" was different- as AD&D came about and the game "matured" much of the fluff and flavor of the game became as tied into to the AD&D experience as the rules themselves- all the naming conventions, the alignment system and the way the planes worked for example- all that fluff became narrowly focused and as much "D&D" as Armor Class or Hit dice. AD&D became it's own brand or type of Fantasy.
See, I tend to think of a game where you can encounter crocodiles, bears, and dinosaurs, or wander off into faerie, as being a tad bit more generic -- a tad bit less "tied into.....all the naming conventions" than a game where you can only encounter "visejaw™" crocodiles, or wander into the "Feywild™".
AD&D includes a host of extremely generic creatures, including a host of extremely generic real-world creatures and a host of creatures that arise from actual mythology and folklore, in order to help create "a far looser feel to the fantasy".
As soon as you Change™ Everything™ To™ Undo™ The™ OGL™ you have stepped, IMHO, out of generic fantasy and into something else.
YMMV, of course.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Well, first of all, I don't use the silly 4E names for monsters
Second, I'm not talking about monsters, I'm talking about the fantasy world.
To me, X2 (for example) fits 4E alot better than AD&D or 3E, because AD&D/3E have very narrow definitions of how the world "is" whereas 4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone. If you've seen the re-write of X2 trying to fit it into AD&D (2E) you''ll maybe see what I mean. What I saw of Paizo trying to shoehorn X1 into post wars GH was much the same kind of thing.
Back to X2- those pocket planes could be part of the feywild or the shadowfell and work much better in the (lack of ) cosmology of 4E (or O/b/X) than 1/2/3E where you have set planes that are comprised of X types of planars with Y alignment, etc etc etc. This is very much how alot of OD&D (LBB) games were because there was little structure or focus built in yet. B/X continued along this same loose line, by having Clerics without gods, vague cosmologies, etc.
I know I'm not explaining myself all that well, but I'm not up for an argument, just saying thats the kind of similarities/compatabilities in OBX and 4E *I*find/experience.
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
Well, first of all, I don't use the silly 4E names for monsters
Second, I'm not talking about monsters, I'm talking about the fantasy world.
To me, X2 (for example) fits 4E alot better than AD&D or 3E, because AD&D/3E have very narrow definitions of how the world "is" whereas 4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone. If you've seen the re-write of X2 trying to fit it into AD&D (2E) you''ll maybe see what I mean. What I saw of Paizo trying to shoehorn X1 into post wars GH was much the same kind of thing.
Back to X2- those pocket planes could be part of the feywild or the shadowfell and work much better in the (lack of ) cosmology of 4E (or O/b/X) than 1/2/3E where you have set planes that are comprised of X types of planars with Y alignment, etc etc etc. This is very much how alot of OD&D (LBB) games were because there was little structure or focus built in yet. B/X continued along this same loose line, by having Clerics without gods, vague cosmologies, etc.
I know I'm not explaining myself all that well, but I'm not up for an argument, just saying thats the kind of similarities/compatabilities in OBX and 4E *I*find/experience.
I totally understand where you are coming from. The undefined nature of a lot of stuff is where 4E made a great move. Having that sit next to the huge pile of exacting rules involving the PC's totally ruins it. Its kind of like a plate with a piece of delicious pie (the freeform cosmology/abilities for NPCs and monsters) sitting next to a turd ( combat rules/things relating to the PC's).
Agreeing on an internet forum will eventually lead to dividing by 0. According to my Calculus professor in college, that's an invitation for Satan to come out of the ground.
Ah, but you see, your calc professor was not a physicist. It happens all the time in Quantum Mechanics. Rather than have the devil come out of the ground, we simply "renormalize" - one way to think of it is that we change the coordinate system so that what looked to be zero (or infinite) isn't really what it seemed.
To some extent, I can understand why 4e strikes people as being similar to 1e. However, I'm not sure the main reason for this has been properly articulated or understood thus far.
1st edition evolved from tactical miniatures combat and was specifically designed to add role-playing elements to this type of combat. 4th edition was also specifically designed around tactical miniatures combat, albeit the type featured in MMORPGs rather than the more traditional wargames 1e sought to emulate. So certainly the emphasis on exactly where each figure is at any given point of time is highly reminiscent of 1e.
The relatively small number of options available to low-level characters in any given round is also very reminiscent of 1e. Such characters, if spellcasters, typically had a few spells they could cast but were otherwise forced to rely on at-will attacks (like slings and darts). Low-level characters in 4e also have a few spells they can cast and are otherwise forced to rely on at-will attacks (like magic missile and ray of frost). The 4e character may be "more magical" in a certain sense, but the in-game impact is largely the same.
That said, however, I'm not sure how well similarities like these really capture the overall feel of the game. To me the key point of departure is 4e's strict separation of tactical role-playing elements like magic missile from strategic/social role-playing elements, and the requirement that parties pay a ritual cost when opting for the latter course. This very much puts the wind at the back of those seeking a Diablo-type role-playing experience, as they're able to use all of their tactical powers without sacrificing gold. Whereas in 1e the wind was if anything at the back of those making their first tentative moves away from the battle mat, with many players exploring for the first time how one might go about running a gaming session with nothing but imagination. Admittedly miniatures were very commonly used in 1e and 4e both, but I don't see the flavor of these two editions as being nearly as similar as some people seem to believe.
One particular alleged similarity which I think people have exactly backwards is this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
[*]Single-classing is DEFINITELY stressed over multiclassing.
The superiority of multi-classed characters in what we would now call "heroic" campaigns was so severe in 1e that it sometimes became difficult to find any single-class characters. And those who were single-classed were typically human fighters who planned to dual once they reached 7th level, eventually enjoying the complete use of all fighter class features plus the complete use of mage or thief class features too -- ideal for paragon-level or epic-level adventures. In this the contrast to 4th edition could hardly be more striking, as you can never gain most features of your second class no matter how much you might wish to do so, through multiclassing or dualclassing or anything else.
The bottom line, I think, is that people who enjoyed the tactical-combat aspect of 1e can rightfully see 4e as being a return to what they knew and loved about (A)D&D, but those who liked 1e for other reasons can be justifiably puzzled by the notion that 4e represents a return to those halcyon days.
I know this is really subjective, but I begin to wonder if people aren't seeing what they want to see regarding the similarities between these two vastly different systems.
If this were true, we'd still be playing 3E (or 2E for that matter). I'd think its fairly obvious us old-school fans are notoriously hard to please...
__________________ "There are few problems a well-placed fireball cannot solve. Now, tell us more about this... orphanage?" - Balfour Grimstaff
----------
Well, first of all, I don't use the silly 4E names for monsters
Second, I'm not talking about monsters, I'm talking about the fantasy world.
I think that the silly 4e names for monsters are difficult to avoid when talking about the fantasy world. As are names like Shadowfell, Feywild, etc.
Considering the vast amount of work to allow ideas from other settings into 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed, it amazes me that one would suggest that "4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone." Where is the 4e Charlemagne's Paladins sourcebook? The 4e Celts? 4e Testament?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbran
Because, as we all know, fictional genres are defined by the licensing terms, rather than the tropes?
You obviously missed what I was responding to:
as AD&D came about and the game "matured" much of the fluff and flavor of the game became as tied into to the AD&D experience as the rules themselves
and the suggestion that the fluff and flavour of 4e was less tied into the 4e experience. Simply not so, IMHO.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Considering the vast amount of work to allow ideas from other settings into 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed, it amazes me that one would suggest that "4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone." Where is the 4e Charlemagne's Paladins sourcebook? The 4e Celts? 4e Testament?
4E's core "world system" is far more inclusive of using Fantasy themes and tropes outside the one's previous editions (from AD&D onward) have relied upon. I won't repeat myself a million times, it's quite obvious in my previous post what I'm referring to/
Quote:
and the suggestion that the fluff and flavour of 4e was less tied into the 4e experience. Simply not so, IMHO.
Not what I was saying at all. Might wanna re-read my posts cos you are trying to go off in your own direction with my points.
__________________ Founding Father of O.A.F! - Old school Admirers of Fourth edition
Proud Rouseketeers Member-Badge #2!
"I feel books like "A Princess of Mars", "The Swords of Lankhmar" and "The Black Company" are far more important to your gaming experience than whether you choose between OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, or D&D4E." - The Ravyn
I think people sometimes get too fixated about what's "official" to see what they could do with the whole- "David "Zeb" Cook
Considering the vast amount of work to allow ideas from other settings into 2nd Ed and 3rd Ed, it amazes me that one would suggest that "4E is alot more inclusive and expansive and not so set in stone." Where is the 4e Charlemagne's Paladins sourcebook? The 4e Celts? 4e Testament?
Are you focusing on D&D4 "The Game" or D&D4 "The License?" From a mechanical standpoint, you could make exactly those sorts of products that actually captured the feel of those genres with the rules - but just like 2E where most of those appeared, it requires a bit of work from someone to do it - but if done well, would actually fit better than the way they were done in 2E, I think. After all, I can't see Roland or Chalremagne just repeatedly "power attacking" when they were cutting down Saracens, or splitting them collar to crotch (or was that Turpin? Can't remember) But I can't see Turpin using "Healing Word" or "Divine Fire of the Faithful" either. I can see room for special exploits that don't scream "magic."
Now, D&D4 "The License" is a different animal, one I'm more than a bit peeved with, myself. I see the OGL/GSL business and the intentional divide as a lot of sound and fury over nothing, but I don't run the company, either. But if the fan base/publishers were given free reign to run over the 4E rules, I believe we'd see some freakin' awesome supplements that would take the system in some really creative and innovative ways - things that WotC can't do because of a need to appeal to a wide fanbase while staying out of the red.
__________________ "Conversely, I'm amazed at the number of people queueing up to tell people that don't like 4e that they are wrong. Why can't people just agree to disagree, and get on with actually playing the game?" --Delericho
If there's one dragon, it's a solo monster.
If there's five dragons, they're standard monsters.
If there's a dozen dragons, either most of them are minions or your DM is tired of the campaign.
--Lizard
1st edition evolved from tactical miniatures combat and was specifically designed to add role-playing elements to this type of combat. 4th edition was also specifically designed around tactical miniatures combat, albeit the type featured in MMORPGs rather than the more traditional wargames 1e sought to emulate.
Which MMORPGs feature tactical minitatures combat? Just the fact that they're online would seem to preclude the use of minis... Which MMORPGs feature turn based combat, for that matter?
Which MMORPGs feature tactical minitatures combat? Just the fact that they're online would seem to preclude the use of minis... Which MMORPGs feature turn based combat, for that matter?
You know actually I played one a while back called Dofus? Flash based tactics RPG, massively multiplayer, harvesting and crafting and all that. Very pretty game. Not much like any kind of D&D.
I think this kind of perception is more typically leveled at the look & feel of some of the powers, as presented, in the 4th edition game though.
The superiority of multi-classed characters in what we would now call "heroic" campaigns was so severe in 1e that it sometimes became difficult to find any single-class characters. And those who were single-classed were typically human fighters who planned to dual once they reached 7th level, eventually enjoying the complete use of all fighter class features plus the complete use of mage or thief class features too -- ideal for paragon-level or epic-level adventures. In this the contrast to 4th edition could hardly be more striking, as you can never gain most features of your second class no matter how much you might wish to do so, through multiclassing or dualclassing or anything else.
Ironically, I saw this progress through my 2e days; in the beginning we had a lot of single-classed characters, but by the time of our last 2e campaign (planescape) we had 2 single-classed PCs and an army of multi-classers (fighter/mage, fighter/mage, mage/thief, fighter/cleric, fighter, paladin, the latter could not multi-class because of race/class combos)
the phenomenon again reared its ugly head in 3e, but only after the "prestige-multi-classes" came out. My last game had a fighter/ranger and a warlock/cleric, but nothing quite to the level of our 2e games.
No one has multi-classed in 4e yet, but I figure it will not be long...
If this were true, we'd still be playing 3E (or 2E for that matter). I'd think its fairly obvious us old-school fans are notoriously hard to please...
Some of us still are. I still play 3.5 with one group, and we plan on trying out Pathfinder. My other group is experimenting with 4E, but the likelyhood of it becoming our D&D edition of choice isn't looking so good right now.
If this were true, we'd still be playing 3E (or 2E for that matter). I'd think its fairly obvious us old-school fans are notoriously hard to please...
I think the situation is reversed. A lot of us old timers are happier with LESS rather than more.
Old timers can sit around with just the basic rules, basic classes (ZOMG every fighter is the same!!!!) roll the dice and play.
New school fans can't accept this. Without kewl powerz and 50 fiddly mechanical adjustments to be made to each character they can't enjoy the adventure.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
