Pros and Cons of going mainstream

The bit on the start of the hobby was ok...and it had this, which was pretty funny:

"the Dungeon Master’s Guide represents the pinnacle of the rationalization"

Though he backs away from it a bit later.

But otherwise: edition war as sociology.

I do agree their is a problem with 4Es tone, and it does lack a certain style...but I have felt that way about most D&D books since, well, that pinnacle of rationalization was released.

pemerton said:

I think it's more than that. I think "canon" has, for some (many?) become an end in itself.

When Arneson ran Temple of the Frog, and Gygax was running games in Maure Castle, they weren't aping anyone else's game. They weren't recycling anyone else's play experience and passing it off as their own? So why has this now become the measure, for a large group of RPGers, of the quality of an RPG experience?

As I said, I think this is where there has ben a move away from creativity to formulaic, pre-packaged experiences.

Looking at it from an edition point of view, I think that 4e was self-consciously built to provide a setting that was transparent to the players in its rationale and basis for adventure, and that lent itself to GMs doing their own thing with it. There is no metaplot.

Some 4e supplements head in a more 2nd ed-ish direction (aspects of Manual of the Planes, the Plane Below and (to a lesser extent) the Plane Above) but overall I think it has been fairly consistent in its approach to setting and its abjuration of metaplot.

Why? How would this make his game better for his players? How would it make it a more interesting or useful example of GMing?

If anything, his column is better for demonstrating that "canon" should be the output of play, not its input.

Click to expand...

What is the point of using settings and creatures like Dispater and Mephistopheles that have canon already if not to stick with it? I mean if you don't want any expectations associated with canon, run a home brew with home brew monsters and everything. It seems really backwards to act shocked that player's would respond to the canon being wrong when it is in fact being used and incorrectly. This is why I didn't run Forgotten Realms for so long, it had a megaton of canon lore that went with it, and I didn't want to learn it all and bother being faithful to it, thus ultimately negating the point of running in that setting in the first place. I ran homebrew instead, and built my own canon for the world, and then was faithful to it because that builds consistency in the world.

There is value in creating your own or using a pre-existing one, but if you are going to use a pre-existing one that your player's are familiar with, using the canon correctly is one of the challenges faced.

Steelwill said:

What is the point of using settings and creatures like Dispater and Mephistopheles that have canon already if not to stick with it? I mean if you don't want any expectations associated with canon, run a home brew with home brew monsters and everything. It seems really backwards to act shocked that player's would respond to the canon being wrong when it is in fact being used and incorrectly. This is why I didn't run Forgotten Realms for so long, it had a megaton of canon lore that went with it, and I didn't want to learn it all and bother being faithful to it, thus ultimately negating the point of running in that setting in the first place. I ran homebrew instead, and built my own canon for the world, and then was faithful to it because that builds consistency in the world.

There is value in creating your own or using a pre-existing one, but if you are going to use a pre-existing one that your player's are familiar with, using the canon correctly is one of the challenges faced.

Click to expand...

That depends on the level of detail you are expecting. I'd make the assumption in any game that Demogorgon was a well known two headed leader of demons about whom a lot of legends had grown up - but I'd assume that that was all at the legendary rather than true level in the average fantasy setting. It gives a nice shared baseline but I certainly wouldn't expect that lore about Thuruzdun I'd read in the MM was correct in this specific setting. Using the names and attributes provides baseline common knowledge the DM doesn't have to set up rather than binds the DM; not all stories are true and not all are false.

Neonchameleon said:

That depends on the level of detail you are expecting.

Click to expand...

My point exactly when I talked about the two sides of the screen expectations. IMO with the encroaching sentiment that everything is core and everyone plays, if not the 1-to-1 exactly same then very compatible game ignore the fact that in fact DM do make campaigns their own prissily by making the changes that make sense to them with the intent to make the gaming experience better. In other words to some people changing the contents of MM is the same as making longsword do 1d12 damage vs large creatures in all editions. I would not have problem with either, as long as the DM tells me that there are deviations from RAW, preferably also giving me a list of those changes without spoilers.

As for why I group 3e and 4e, in the context of this discussion I see both as shift in the direction of making the rules not only consistent in terms of crunch but also in fluff. Thus the concept of overcampaigns, fluff that applies to all those who choose to run a game in published one (or even the one implied in the core books). While there are several advantages to this approach it can also lead to the mentality that if you change detail X in setting/edition Y you are not in fact playing Y but a homebrew. (And should go be ashamed in the corner.)
In the same vain, since not everyone uses the same rules it is not inconceivable that not everyone applies errata. My game is not "broken" it is differently structured then the RAW and by your statements Neonchameleon so is yours.

pemerton said:

This thread seems as good a place as any to mention something I noticed last week when reading Chris Perkins's column: one thing that Perkins talks about is a deal done by one of the PCs with Dispater, which ended up being one element of the campaign's dramatic resolution. And in the comments, we get this:

EvilDM1395: Chris I am disappointed in you for the first time. Dispater is the most paranoid of the Archdevils of the Nine Hells and I doubt would even project himself to make such a deal. Now it would have been much more interesting to have Mephistopheles, Archdevil and ruler of Cania, to make such a deal as he can't be trusted as the betrayer that he is.

Chris Perkins: The player character chose to summon an aspect of Dispater, so it wasn't my decision. . .

EvilDM1395: Didn't realize the Multi-verse was dumbed down that much in 4th Ed . . . Not matter, Dispater is still cloistered Devil who has almost no interaction with others due to his self preservation and paranoia. The rest of the game sounded great.​

Click to expand...

Ouch...yeah, that's kind of a WoW Red Shirt Guy type moment.

Neonchameleon said:

That thing's way out of date - they put in a 1 free action attack restriction that deals with a lot of it. And I'm sure you'll forgive me for not worrying about:

Use a Falchion (2d4) as your base weapon, and you've got a good chance of rolling a silly-high damage roll. Use a Ring of Radiant Storm and Free Soul epic destiny to make it more reliable. Don't crit.


So outside epic destinies, epic powers and doing something that fails the giggle test (attacking yourself to miss) about all that's left is obvious abuse of the War Wizard's Staff and Storm Pillar, and a pair of Evermeet Warlocks.​

Click to expand...

Loonook said:

A.) Doesn't deal with all of it.

B.) You mean a game where actual errata is applied can be balanced?

Click to expand...

Perfect balance is like a frictionless environment. No one actually wants one because the consequences are ... weird. But engineers spend a long time trying to get as close as they can for a damn good reason.

The problem is that, for want of balance 4e became kind of boring. I think of 4e as the Ikea edition. Modular in its specific use, functional but not exactly flashy, and built with simplicity in mind. There are few ways to hurt yourself playing 4e, and there aren't a lot of competitors deciding to produce additional models.

Click to expand...

Off the top of my head MHRP (i.e. the third biggest game this year) explicitely calls out 4e in terms of design decisions and WHFRP 3e is very obviously inspired by a mix of 4e, WHFRP 1/2e, and Descent. Then there's Pelgrane Press's 13th Age (although citing a game by Heinsoo is probably cheating) and a couple of Heartbreakers.

I'd say that's some decently sized names - especially given that a cramped 4e simply wouldn't work half as well - you need the powers to give the characters the distinctiveness they were lacking in earlier editions. No, it's not the OGL glut - but guess what? No OGL. And a massively higher barrier to entry both in terms of quality and versitility to produce a competitor.

3.x (and to a lesser extent OD&D, AD&D, etc.) is dealing with a giant machining and carpentry shop with limited safety gear. Yeah you could in theory chop your arm off, but you can only make that mistake twice. You can create your own safety measures... And you have a much finer influence on the final product.

Click to expand...

4e on the other hand is a junkyard full of cars which gives you welding tools and has some cars that may be on the scrap heap but are certainly drivable. If you want to create something other than a car made out of metal you're going to struggle badly or go elsewhere - but if you want a car it's much easier than making one out of wood. And with the junk yard being what it is you can customise your cars far more effectively and efficiently. And cars are 90% of what the carpentry shop is trying to produce.

Neonchameleon said:

Off the top of my head MHRP (i.e. the third biggest game this year) explicitely calls out 4e in terms of design decisions and WHFRP 3e is very obviously inspired by a mix of 4e, WHFRP 1/2e, and Descent. Then there's Pelgrane Press's 13th Age (although citing a game by Heinsoo is probably cheating) and a couple of Heartbreakers.

Click to expand...

Being the third biggest game is a hell of a drop off. Also WHFRP's movements towards a more boardy experience isn't necessarily a shout out to 4e (moreso a nod to Warhammer Fantasy).

I'd say that's some decently sized names - especially given that a cramped 4e simply wouldn't work half as well - you need the powers to give the characters the distinctiveness they were lacking in earlier editions. No, it's not the OGL glut - but guess what? No OGL. And a massively higher barrier to entry both in terms of quality and vers[a]tility to produce a competitor.

Click to expand...

One of the great parts of pre-3e was the prevalence of those house rules. When Usenet came about you started going from handwritten/typed printed little batches to the Netbooks of the late 2e period. Those netbooks could cover a range of ideas that were just too niche to fit. The OGL allowed those writers to hang up a shingle and make a little dosh for their hard work.

For the most part that homebrew craftsmanship just no longer exists in my personal sphere of 4e players beyond the occasional power, destiny, or small bit. Just look at this old netbook list. I love that level of obsessive energy being pointed towards some of those silly topics... And the old Pantheon lists that included dozens if not hundreds of gods to just yank from mythology, homebrews, literature? It was fun.

4e on the other hand is a junkyard full of cars which gives you welding tools and has some cars that may be on the scrap heap but are certainly drivable. If you want to create something other than a car made out of metal you're going to struggle badly or go elsewhere - but if you want a car it's much easier than making one out of wood. And with the junk yard being what it is you can customise your cars far more effectively and efficiently. And cars are 90% of what the carpentry shop is trying to produce.

Click to expand...

And the car metaphor is kind of apt. For the most part 4e encourages the building of Yugos, with the occasional Fiat. Nothing really flashy, or challenging to drive. 3e provides for a collection of parts that could create a Nash Rambler or a Ferrari...

But with a DM who selects a rough template you have a bit of definition. Maybe you put a restrictor plate here, a governor here, and that balance is enforced.

The real issue is that the earlier editions required that the DM have system knowledge and the ability to corral overpower at their own table. 4e makes for an extremely portable, small mod community.

But some of us like fighting that beast, and maybe losing a fingertip from time to time.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

Loonook said:

Being the third biggest game is a hell of a drop off. Also WHFRP's movements towards a more boardy experience isn't necessarily a shout out to 4e (moreso a nod to Warhammer Fantasy).

Click to expand...

The game has Power Cards ffs. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

And yes, being the third biggest game is a hell of a drop off - but it always has been as far as I know. Your point?

One of the great parts of pre-3e was the prevalence of those house rules.

Click to expand...

Best - and worst. They were interesting certainly.

For the most part that homebrew craftsmanship just no longer exists in my personal sphere of 4e players beyond the occasional power, destiny, or small bit.

Click to expand...

That might just be because the 4e character design is more flexible and more reflective of actual mythological character concepts than either 3e or 2e despite the glut both games had.

Just look at this old netbook list.

Click to expand...

All links 404'd. Which might be just as well as the quality of netbook design made me want to poke my eyes out in most cases.

And the car metaphor is kind of apt. For the most part 4e encourages the building of Yugos, with the occasional Fiat. Nothing really flashy, or challenging to drive. 3e provides for a collection of parts that could create a Nash Rambler or a Ferrari...

Click to expand...

Yeah, sure if by "Ferrari" you mean a wooden cutout saying the word "Ferrari".

Given that despite Appendix N The Grey Mouser was almost impossible to create as a PC before 4e, the casters were so larded with flavour that they resembled almost nothing in any fiction anyone wanted to write, and the non-casters were boring and crippled you might theoretically be able to create the parts for a Ferrari - but you had about the same chance of that as you had of creating a working fusion reactor.

But some of us like fighting that beast, and maybe losing a fingertip from time to time.

Click to expand...

And some of us are, from the players side, capable of hogtying that beast with one hand behind our backs, and consider it still not worth the effort as the beast is bug ugly, doesn't resemble any fiction, and is neither a particular challenge nor shows us anything about the world the way GURPS books sometimes can.

Neonchameleon said:

The game has Power Cards ffs. I'm not sure what you're looking for.

Click to expand...

Cards that contain information on specific abilities? Well then, 2e was retroactively designed using the 4e design philosophy:

Best - and worst. They were interesting certainly.

Click to expand...

And the idea was great. Being able to tune to your specific desires? Fantastic.

That might just be because the 4e character design is more flexible and more reflective of actual mythological character concepts than either 3e or 2e despite the glut both games had.

Click to expand...

Using the idea that splitting your character's levels into artificial steps does not make you Campbell. Even so, such artificial cliffs did exist in earlier editions through the edition of various follower groups, the Druid's special type of advancement, etc.

If the rules need to make the story for you that could be an issue, as that is now making a system of resolution affect the narrative directly.

All links 404'd. Which might be just as well as the quality of netbook design made me want to poke my eyes out in most cases.

Click to expand...

And that was the point. There were plenty that were fantastic, and some that were horrendous. Those b&w Kinkos prints handed out among groups for campaigns and rules... A lost art.

Yeah, sure if by "Ferrari" you mean a wooden cutout saying the word "Ferrari".

Given that despite Appendix N The Grey Mouser was almost impossible to create as a PC before 4e, the casters were so larded with flavour that they resembled almost nothing in any fiction anyone wanted to write, and the non-casters were boring and crippled you might theoretically be able to create the parts for a Ferrari - but you had about the same chance of that as you had of creating a working fusion reactor.

Click to expand...

I see what your problem is now... The difficulty in separating mechanics from flavor. Now your choices of games to highlight also make sense. Also you're kind of an obsessive optimizer per your other discussions in threads.

That's definitely an interesting place to approach gaming from. While there will always be a certain amount of gamism, narrative and simulation can be achieved through the system. The problem is that you suffer from a need to optimize so much in 3e that you find the enforced limits of 4e to be comfortable. Which was kind of the point behind the Ikea vs. Carpentry argument.

And some of us are, from the players side, capable of hogtying that beast with one hand behind our backs, and consider it still not worth the effort as the beast is bug ugly, doesn't resemble any fiction, and is neither a particular challenge nor shows us anything about the world the way GURPS books sometimes can.

Click to expand...

Here's a hint: .

An implied level of system mastery above those who play 3e and enjoy it is just worrisome. We understand the breaks in the system, we deal with them. Like a homeowner we patch the walls, lay on some paint, maybe replace the ductwork here and there... But we also can make a nice little comfortable sweet spot cottage, or an extravagant mansion with lakes filled with dire psuedonatural koi swimming in their Lovecraftian beauty.

And the argument against the game not playing like fiction... Well, we're creating something of our own. That's the fun of our group. If we want a shaved orangutan who grapples using holy tattoos as a fiendhunter? We can put it together. Wanna play a fat merchant who uses wind magic through his ornate fan? We can do it. There's all sorts of ways to tweak the levels of power, base this on that, go from there.

And it's still .

Slainte,

-Loonook.