Thanks, ExploderWizard. I thought I'd fork off a new thread for discussing perception: How did I not see a beholder?Great video-good stuff.
4E and "Old School Gaming" (and why they aren't mutually exclusive"
Thasmodious
First Post
I guess you should just get used to having any attempt to discuss 4e with other 4e players be dismissed by a certain group of posters as "mouth noise" and the game then attacked as a "greedy marketing ploy" and a "boardgame' and any opinion to the contrary being dismissed as "delusional".
For the record, I agree with you that 4e has a very old school feel to it. I think its directly tied to the DM freedom that is built into the system, that and the re-emergence of class as a central component of character, rather than just a suite of abilities to be chosen at level up. The emphasis is back on leveling within a class as opposed to applying classes to your levels. I think that is a big source of the disconnect for some players, as well. I could see how 4e would feel more constricting to long time 3e players (especially those who started with 3e) with its old school emphasis on class choice.
JeffB
Legend
:clapshands:
Excellent post. I have to laugh at a certain overly vocal element here on EnWorld telling me what I feel/the kind of fun I'm having, is "wrong"- I'm delusional, there is no way I could prefer 4E by far over 3E for "old school" style, nor do I know WTF I'm talking about when it comes to "old school" in general, even though I started playing OD&D in the late 70s with the LBBs. You cannot even try to discuss it in a fun/interesting manner among others who feel the same way about 4E without the vocal "I know what you think and feel better than you do" posters beating you down line by line to "prove you wrong".
Psion
Adventurer
Yeah, the 4e fans (and designers) telling me that thrill over high magic and the tension created by the peril of save-or-die effects was "wrong" got me down too.
I've been seeing a core idea expressed here on the internet at least as far back as when 3E came out and it barely makes any sense to me at all.
IME "simulationism" was much more then norm in the earlier editions. The idea that people intentionally made 1E vague I think it overstating the reality. Much of the vagueness and reliance on DM-fiat was a result of the evolution of the game and not some intentional design philosophy. IME alternate rule sets like Dragon Magazine, the basic version of DnD etc. were mined by DMs to establish the rule set. In the end, I just don't see the claims that 1E was rules-light in practice as being back up by what I remember FWIW. Consider the wargaming background of many of the parcicipants in the early days.
And when it comes to "breaking rules" I just don't read how 3E or 4E really makes that any more difficult than it was in earlier editions. The example I think of is climbing. Let's say that the rules say that a wall of a certain nature has a climb check DC of 15. What would the circumstances be for "breaking" this rule? You do realize that circumstantial modifiers are part of the rules, right? Using circumstantial modifiers isn't breaking or bending anything. The DM is well within his rights AFAICT to say that walls on Tuesdays are +10 to their DCs - it's his world and his walls. Sure, the players might think that's stupid, but they also might think that elves and orcs banding together in an alliance is stupid. Ultimately the physics of the campaign world is to be determined by the DM, and this is RAW. Nothing in any of the editions contradicts this.
So what's left under the heading of "bending the rules" by the DM are only the most extreme cases of a complete disregard for letting the circumstances dictate the probabilities. And really, I can't actually think of an example that I couldn't come up with circumstance modifiers to justify. The basic philosophy of every edition of DnD was that both players and the DM would roll dice for the outcome, and that the DM would be a "neutral arbiter" and that his judging of the game would involve determining the circumstances surrounding a particular event, and then determine the chance of success/failure based on these circumstances, and that the judging of those circumstances was ideally to be done in a consistent manner (example - if last week I got a +5 for climbing while wearing spiked gauntlets, I should get the same thing this week barring additional circumstances). No edition of DnD IME has ever tried to prevent this basic DMing philosophy.
If the DM is, in fact, creating a more "enjoyable experience" then I would think he wouldn't have much explaining to do about breaking the rules since the players would all agree what an improvement his change would be. If the DMs and all the players at the table think that limiting halflings to 4th level as fighters makes a more enjoyable and old-school experience then IMO that pretty much settles the issue. The DM wouldn't need the official rule set to validate this judgement in this case.
JeffB
Legend
Well that's not *me* Alan. You know the kind of people around here I'm talking about, and there is a handful of 4E zealots whom are just as bad. When it was the 2E people doing the sniping at the new 3E fans when this website was new, that
was NOT tolerated. I wish Morrus would provide a 4E general area separate from this one- so like minded folks can discuss things they want to discuss (like how some of use feel there is alot of Ol School "feel" in 4E, or 3E is far more flexible because of XYZ) without a handful of idiots ruining it for the rest of us. Every single thread degenerates into this crapfest. More moderation, separate forum, I don't really care which, but this site has become extremely "hostile".
Obryn
Hero
Well that's funny. I mean, I don't ever recall calling any of those badwrongfun, or that people who claimed to enjoy playing that way were either delusional or lying. I understand that some folks did, but I don't understand how it's relevant to my or JeffB's claims at all.
I'm trying to understand your point. Turnabout is fair play? Two wrongs make a right?
-O
Psion
Adventurer
Oh, I know. And I never said you were. And I apologize if you felt like I was targeting you.
I'm just saying it goes on on both sides. And like you felt assailed, I felt lumped in by characterization.
Curious: when do you think it got hostile? Because I feel the trend has been towards less hostile over the last month. Could it be just a matter of perception fed by how many people you think agree with you?
Obryn
Hero
I really don't... I think a broad-range, General RPG forum is good for the site. Yes, it's annoying that every. single. thread. will tend to turn into exactly the same argument after a while, often with the same people making the same points about the same topic. And often far afield from the original post. (As an example: My post here, which relates to the OP not at all.) But that shouldn't overshadow the value.
I think it's great to separate out the various rules forums - that makes them much more useful. However, I don't like the idea of ghetto-izing either 3e-related or 4e-related general RPG discussions.
-O
