L&L: Putting the Vance in Vancian

Balesir · Mar 2, 2012

pemerton said:
I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is not D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.

I thoroughly agree with this (if you replace "stories" with "game"

), but I take a slightly different approach, as expressed in my previous post.

There seem to be some for whom only their own cherished playstyle represents "D&D", and they seem (in some cases) to be determined to wage an all out war to claim that name.

I'm not really interested in fighting a war over three syllables. If they want it that much, screw it, let them have the name. This is why, if D&D Next turns out to be a revamp of 3E (or whatever), it won't particularly bother me at all. What will bother me is that the game that is 4E may be left orphaned and unsupported way before it has been developed into the potential that I see in it. I don't like 4E because it's D&D - I like it because I think it's a bloody good game!

Maybe some solution can be found; WotC could continue supporting 4E alongside Next, an OGL-equivalent for 4E might be formed or the rights for "4E" might be sold to a third party, maybe. But I can't say that I'm holding my breath.

Neonchameleon · Mar 2, 2012

pemerton said:
I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is not D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.

I agree with this too, although I think 4e's attractions for me are slightly different from those that Balesir sees.

Just to chime in, this is what I see too. If Dungeons and Dragons is about the tropes D&D has built up for itself over the years then 4e is not D&D. On the other hand if D&D is about Appendix N and the stories presented in Appendix N then 4e is closer to D&D than any edition there has been

talok55 · Mar 2, 2012

I didn't return to D&D with 4e because 4e is not D&D. I returned to D&D with 4e because with 4e, D&D finally had the mechanics to deliver the sort of stories that it had been promising me for over 20 years, but that I had been using other mechanical systems to achieve.

Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.

talok55 · Mar 2, 2012

Otakkun said:
I get the feeling that this new edition is going to be to 3.5E what Player's Option: Skills & Powers was for AD&D.

With all this vacian magic talk I can't but get the feeling that we'll devolve back into pre 4E spells (let's be frank, magic defines each D&D edition, fighters have been rolling that d20 to hit from 1E to 3.5E) and that will bring us back to some sort of modified 3.5E once again.

A shame since I believe that some parts of 4E should be saved, like the concept of no "in-combat healing" that existed at the release of 4E (it later went down the drain with the new powers, feats, etc). IMHO I prefer combat with just healing surges and no healing from other sources while in combat. Clerics can heal everyone just fine outside of it, using resources to do it (think healing rituals). That should speed combat a bit.

So, let's hope Monte & company are able to surprise us with this D&DN, but I don't see how it could possibly be better than a recopilation of the best of 3.5E with some additional options (at least so far).

Quite frankly, they could do a lot worse than a "Player's Option" version of 3.5. Looking at the popularity of Pathfinder, it might even be successful.

Majoru Oakheart · Mar 2, 2012

talok55 said:
Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.

I can't answer for him, but I can answer for me.

None of that stuff breaks immersion for me or my group. We're perfectly ok with "We are playing a game, the book that describes the rules to the game says we can do that, so we can."

It also isn't about being super heroic at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. The last 3.5e game I ran went like this:

"We wake up in the morning. I cast this list of 12 spells on the party. We are all immune to all damage from Fire, Lightning, Cold, Acid, and Sonic damage. Everyone's AC is 4 points higher, the 2 fighters absorb the first 50 points of damage dealt to them and we are all immune to save or die spells for the next 2 hours. If anyone dies, I can bring them back to life 2 or 3 times today. Also, I have a spell that will stop someone from dying no matter how much damage they take. I have the ability to restore us all to full hitpoints 5 times each from empty.

We teleport back into the dungeon into the last room we left off in. We walk down the hallway into the next room. There's a Lich in there? Alright, we win initiative, we cast a spell that does damage based on the number of spells he has up, since he's a lich, I bet that's a lot. And it's maximized. That didn't kill him? I cast it again, only quickened this time. He dies now? Perfect. We loot him then teleport back to the inn. We'll recover our spells and come back tomorrow."

Add to that the fact that all secrets were easily revealed with a spell. They could spy on anyone in the world at a moment's notice...it just got silly. You couldn't run a storyline like the ones that were in movies and tv shows. Instead, the only stories you could tell were the ones that D&D created: A game about beings with God-like powers who played in a sandbox of quaint mortals.

4e allows me to run a storyline where the PCs do something without teleporting past all the obstacles. I know that the PCs, even at 16th level have the ability to attack enemies in a variety of ways, but that I still have control over the way the plot goes. They still have to explore every room, they still have to fight the monsters, they have to face the traps. Their powers don't let them bypass all of that. Their powers don't make any of the encounters completely one sided. They aren't immune to all damage from the enemies. They have to figure out what the enemy is plotting by finding clues and thinking instead of by casting one spell and asking the gods.

The "super powered" Warlord can restore 50% of someone's hitpoints per battle...and give people +2 to hit. If anything, it's by far in the other direction.

Kingreaper · Mar 2, 2012

talok55 said:
Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. .

And yet, it's common in stories.

4e is full of NARRATIVIST mechanics (limit breaker powers, you can shout someone back into the fight, etc.)

That scene where someone is faltering, but their friend boosts their courage/reminds them why they're fighting/threatens to kill them if they die, is a staple of fiction.

The fact you think that being able to emulate a staple of fiction makes it harder to tell stories is simply confusing.

Crazy Jerome · Mar 2, 2012

talok55 said:
Exactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.

If that was all 4E is, they wouldn't. However, 4E is a strong blend of gamist and narrative mechanics that happen to work really well for a certain kind of action hero fantasy story--if you use the full range and implication of the mechanics. (And of course, if your simulation and/or immersion preferences are strong enough, that is going to be extremely difficult to do. Nothing wrong with that, either; it just is. Of course, if your preferences are that strong, you probably lack the sensibility to make full use of 4E in the way that it is intended, and are thus limited in your insight. This is bound to affect your ability to make a fair critique of it--like asking a traditional Country and Western music fan to give a fair critique of Heavy Metal.)

Try to emulate Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser in a version of D&D, fairly, using the mechanics as listed. Let's pick "The Seven Black Priests" since it has an exploration build up scene, followed by an extended fight with some stalking and clever use of the environment. The "twain" are fairly experienced by now, so this is a more fair adventure to the early D&D versions than some others I could pick:

Basic/Expert or RC or similar: A good DM will pull this off, as long as the luck doesn't turn too sour. The twain are trying everything in their power to shift the fight to their favor, and a good DM will roll with that and not get too picky on what can be done. Still, in a fight this long, the luck will likely turn sour at some critical point, and either TPK or fudging will occur. Alternately, the foes aren't as tough as they appear, to avoid that problem.

AD&D - 1E style: Similar to RC, but tighter margins. The key problem here is that the foes will pull out some magic that really messes up the day, and the luck of saving throws will determine how things go.

AD&D - 2E style: In "storyteller" mode, this will work as well as anything else, because the DM is already half ignoring the mechanics to keep things moving. Of course, anyone dedicated enough to that style to make this adventure work isn't going to run this adventure in the first place. Or if they try, they will fudge like mad to make it seem "difficult" and replace a bunch of things.

3E/3.5: This is a pretty good spot for 3E versions, as we are probably talking around 7th to 9th level here--maybe a bit higher. Lack of skills will mean the twain would not have reached this adventure in the first place, but you can get around that by hand-waving it. The crucial problem here is the ebb and flow of the running battle. In 3E, it will either turn into a slug-fest (Fafhrd takes multiple attacks by not moving) or the twain gets an early edge and slaughters the priest in two or three rounds (no doubt thanks to some magic item the Mouser activates with Use Magic Device).

4E: The battle is extended, with ebb and flow, fighting on skis seems perfectly normal, the protagonists have a decent variety of skill checks that are reasonable to attempt in creative ways, a good DM is remembering page 42. There is time and even reason for the characters to make running commentary (if you like that, even though not much of it in the scene as written by Leiber). The characters are fully capable of getting to the adventure, skulking around during it, dealing with the aftermath, and then leaving, without any handwaving.

This is an example that is highly generous to the earlier versions. The real key is that in 4E, you could have played those kind of characters from level 1 up, and it would have still worked. In RC/AD&D you might have been able to do that if you wanted to go through several character deaths before finally getting lucky (which is a kind of fun I appreciate at times, mind).

Crazy Jerome · Mar 2, 2012

Majoru Oakheart said:
4e allows me to run a storyline where the PCs do something without teleporting past all the obstacles. I know that the PCs, even at 16th level have the ability to attack enemies in a variety of ways, but that I still have control over the way the plot goes. They still have to explore every room, they still have to fight the monsters, they have to face the traps. Their powers don't let them bypass all of that. Their powers don't make any of the encounters completely one sided. They aren't immune to all damage from the enemies. They have to figure out what the enemy is plotting by finding clues and thinking instead of by casting one spell and asking the gods.

The "super powered" Warlord can restore 50% of someone's hitpoints per battle...and give people +2 to hit. If anything, it's by far in the other direction.

It would be mostly unfair, but not without some merit to say that 3E tends to read like a story, play like a videogame, whereas 4E tends to read like a videogame, play like a story. :angel:

Odhanan · Mar 2, 2012

pemerton said:
[MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION], I didn't have you in mind when I made my post. But I am curious - if 4e doesn't have the D&D feel for you, what about Oriental Adventurs (the 1980s version)? Or some of the "story"-oriented stuff from the 2nd ed era?

I mean, maybe there were people who played OA in just the sort of way Gygax talks about at the end of his PHB, but I find that a bit hard to imagine.

If I may answer that question, even though I'm obviously not Bedrockgames here.

First caveat: you like whatever you like. This is not a pissing contest, and you play the games you enjoy. I'm fine with that. It's not because you enjoy some things I don't, or some things I would not consider "D&D", that I have to magically change my mind about them.

Alright. Caveat out of the way... about Oriental Adventures:

Oriental Adventures is the fruit of Dave Cook's work and vision. It already contains elements of the 2essification of the game like the Non-Weapon Proficiencies, an absence of focus on the exploration of the dungeon and wilderness, and suffers from a typically Cookian POV that the foreign culture depicted is fantastical enough that you don't need to actually treat the "Dungeons & Dragons" part of ... Dungeons & Dragons (as exemplified as well in modules such as X1 -for all its merits-, X4 and so on).

It can be useful as a toolbox. I appreciate some of its input, taken bit by bit, considered each on their own merits. Taken whole-cloth to run Asian-themed campaigns, it would suck, because it would not be "Dungeons & Dragons".

Now, more on where I am coming from, and why I don't like 2nd edition AD&D (edit - language in those posts might not be safe for work, you have been warned).

pemerton · Mar 3, 2012

Balesir said:
There seem to be some for whom only their own cherished playstyle represents "D&D", and they seem (in some cases) to be determined to wage an all out war to claim that name.

I'm not really interested in fighting a war over three syllables. If they want it that much, screw it, let them have the name. This is why, if D&D Next turns out to be a revamp of 3E (or whatever), it won't particularly bother me at all.

I agree with this, in the sense that I can cheerfully play an unsupported game. I've done that with Rolemaster in the past. And WotC don't owe me anything - if they want to stop publishing the game I enjoy, and start publishing a different one that they believe will be commercially more viable, that's their prerogative as a commercial publishing house.

My irritation is with the implication from some posters that, because I play and enjoy 4e, I'm not a legitimate member of the D&D community (whatever exactly that is).

Neonchameleon said:
If Dungeons and Dragons is about the tropes D&D has built up for itself over the years then 4e is not D&D. On the other hand if D&D is about Appendix N and the stories presented in Appendix N then 4e is closer to D&D than any edition there has been

I agree with the second sentence. But I'm not sure about the first. Obviously D&D covers a range of tropes, and I'm not sure which ones you have in mind. But the tropes I think of when I think D&D (and gonzo fantasy more broadly) are many and wacky monsters (ranging from multiple forms of humanoid through giants and witches and werewolves to dragons and griffons and rocs to mind flayers and aboleths and, heaven help us, beholders), other planes that are sources of foes and places of adventures, demons and devils trying to subvert and destroy the world (including Demorgogon, Orcus, Juiblex and Slaad Lords), PC heroes who are richly and thematically defined personae, who fight and survive implausibly many battles, and gradually but steadily rise from relative insignificance to world-shaking prominence.

These are the tropes that I first began to encounter in Fighting Fantasy Gamebooks, and then discovered in B/X D&D. Rolemaster also offers them (whereas Runequest doesn't - part of the reason why I gravitated from D&D to RM rather than to RQ). And so does 4e.

Odhanan said:
Oriental Adventures is the fruit of Dave Cook's work and vision. It already contains elements of the 2essification of the game like the Non-Weapon Proficiencies, an absence of focus on the exploration of the dungeon and wilderness, and suffers from a typically Cookian POV that the foreign culture depicted is fantastical enough that you don't need to actually treat the "Dungeons & Dragons" part of ... Dungeons & Dragons

<snip>

Taken whole-cloth to run Asian-themed campaigns, it would suck, because it would not be "Dungeons & Dragons".

<snip>

I don't like 2nd edition AD&D

I'm not a big fan of 2nd ed AD&D. I think it's GMing advice is poor and many of the modules railroads. I can see the links you are drawing between OA and 2nd ed, but OA does not have the same GMing advice and does not need to be run as a railroad, and does not particularly encourage it.

All that said, I think it one thing to say "I don't care for 2nd ed AD&D", but another thing to say that it is not D&D. It was the published game for 10 years, after all.

talok55 said:
IExactly how do ultra gamist, non-sensical mechanics (which 4E is full of) enhance your ability to tell the stories you want to tell? I know this sounds snarky, but I really can't get my head around this. If anything I would think that non-sensical things like a warlord yelling someone back into a fight would break immersion and thus detract from telling good stories. I guess others want super heroic, leave any semblance of realism behind, kind of games that don't appeal to me.

This strikes me as needlessly insulting. Instead of asserting, with no evidence, that my game is full of nonsensical things that leave any semblance of realism behind, you could always have asked how I (or other 4e GMs) handle metagame mechanics like hp, Inspiring Word, etc.

Kingreaper said:
4e is full of NARRATIVIST mechanics (limit breaker powers, you can shout someone back into the fight, etc.)

That scene where someone is faltering, but their friend boosts their courage/reminds them why they're fighting/threatens to kill them if they die, is a staple of fiction.

The fact you think that being able to emulate a staple of fiction makes it harder to tell stories is simply confusing.

Completely agreed.

The scene I tend to think of, as an example of someone's love for a friend ally reviving him/her from unconcsciousness, is the Aragorn dream sequences in the Two Towers. The only way to duplicate that in an RPG, as far as I am aware, is via a metagame mechanic of some form or other - by definition, the PC cannot act within the fiction, being unconscious. Inspiring Word is one such mechanic. (And it can also work in the way you describe - the unconscious PC hears the cry of his/her friend and ally over the pounding of the blood in his/her head, and returns to the fray.)