Second, I think there is a limit to how flexible the system can be and still be a good system. Some design choices have to be made and their consequences worn, I think.
How many counterexamples do people have to post?
I play 4e as a light narrativist ("story now") game. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @
Campbell <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> and <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @
Manbearcat <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> seem to play similarly. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> <snip>
If I've characterized anyone's style I apologize, but I'm trying my best to work from my memory of posts and threads).
<snip> So the game can be played from multiple player approaches too.
None of that contradicts your claim that
you couldn't make 4e fit your style. But there is more than one style that is not yours!
I tend to agree with the first part. However, many (most?) will disagree I suspect as it seems that D&D adherents historically love the incoherency/lack of focus/driftability of the various systems above all else. As I've grown into a 35 year old curmudgeon though, looking back I'm not certain that (at least for my group) this "driftability" of the system was inherent to D&D. I wonder if it was more a product of the lack of our "refined" (and I don't mean this in a snobby way...I just mean that it took some time to pare away what we didn't want and focus solely on what we want) tastes, understanding of our playstyle inclinations and knowing how to get there. My tastes (and that of my group) are now focused like a laser-beam and I am certain that if I went back through our games (from Basic onward) I/we could not have mustered
exactly what I/we want with those systems. I/we could have fun...but not "the most fun possible."
A few things on my (and my groups) playstyle:
- Your depiction is accurate of my own tastes and therefore my games and that of my group. Because of this, I am certain that "light narrativist" play is fully supported by 4e.
- Our game drifts toward "light narrativist married to gamist" off and again. So I'm certain it supports that playstyle.
- I've run dozens of combat sims on my own in order to master the tactical interface of the system (in order to provide the fastest, climactic and most dynamic and interesting combat possible for my players) so I'm certain that strident gamist "step on up" is supported. "Encounters" obviously bears this out as well.
- I've run long term "Appalachian Trail" strategic-resource-attrition, extended Skill Challenges by way of leveraging Disease Track mechanics...so I'm certain that this portion of Gygaxian play is supported.
Regarding my players' interests:
My players (3 primary) are all over the map. They love Call of Cthulu, Classic Traveler, Rolemaster, GURPS, Flashing Blades, All prior iterations of D&D. I would say that two of the three are first and foremost ardent "Right to Dream"-ers...but we've made 4e work...and we've had our best experience to date. And they certainly have enjoyed 4e's mechanics that let them actualize their favored archetypes and their PC-build resources that allow them to enter Author and Director stance and express their favored archetype within the fiction. The 3rd player is new to gaming. She is a Chemist by formal training and career. Her everyday life is grounded in hard, physical science. Her mind is very much organized in a "left brain" fashion (logical, sequential, analytical, looks at parts rather than whole). One would think that she might potentially be turned off by 4e if it is so utterly threatening to a Simulationist agenda. The opposite is true. She loves the system and leverages each of its moving parts to bring her character to life within the fiction.
I can understand that some folks may not be able to reproduce their playstyles toward the end of "the most fun possible." However, in light of the above, I just cannot accept the premise that 4e allows only the most narrow form of play and excludes all others.</snip></snip>