Game vs Game System

[jdrakeh]

You neglect to say if you think this is a good thing.

I am not required to tinge every post with personal bias, fortunately The truth is, it can be a good thing. It can also be a bad thing. It's all in the execution.

Posting on a fora without a bias?

When I can. I read the forum header as "D&D 4th Edition" which neither implies nor demands attacks on fans of either old or new.

 

[Scribble]

When I can. I read the forum header as "D&D 4th Edition" which neither implies nor demands attacks on fans of either old or new.

This line of thinking must not be allowed to spread at all costs.

It could lead to untold outbreaks of mass order and reason.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Traditionally, D&D as-written is a set of rules that lets you play games, but it isn't a game in and of itself. The new edition seems to be introducing an explicit setting, premise, and theme into the core package -- something that all earlier editions of D&D lack. In this regard, D&D 4e is shaping up to be much more "game" than simple "rules".

I like your definition of rules and system and seems to cover older editions of DnD well.
But I think that, especially as the PoL setting is not going to be fully developed, 4E is no less of a set of rules than previous. Yes there is fluff/setting there but there always has been. There are names for races in the 3E PHB, same fluff as 4E appears to be getting. 4E may have considerably more than previous editions (we don't know until the books are in our hot sweaty hands!) but this is only to help/encourage new and/or casual gamers especially good for a first time DM! I don't think the inclusion of the PoL setting will preclude making your own 'game' (in your terms) but it may take a little more work to separate the rules from fluff.
With DnD really needed to attract fresh blood and they will most likely be casual gamers; I think that WotC have the right idea. Enough in the 3 first core books to get you going, without too much work, although a simple 1 page area map would be nice for a newbie

 

[Dausuul]

Why this hasn't happened yet, I can't even fathom. D&D branding is more powerful than the game and WotC/Hasbro hasn't made move one to cash in on it. Which sucks, because for us gamers it would be a boon: not only would we get neat toys to play wi... er, collect, it might actually broaden the potential player base.

What do you think DDM is?

 

[Teydyn]

From all the talk about encounter design and removing stuff which isn't needed for combat I got the impression that monsters will be reduced to combat encounters only.

Do you need a big statblock with Non-Combat-Stats for Combat:
NO

Do you need a big statblock with Combat-Stats for Fluff:
NO


I think its wonderful they separated the background fluff & crunch from the combat crunch. Easier to run in combat and easier to describe for the rest.

You dont have to search for his Craft: Skullcarving, Profession: Slaver skills when its described in the fluff section.

 

[The Little Raven]

Traditionally, D&D as-written is a set of rules that lets you play games, but it isn't a game in and of itself. The new edition seems to be introducing an explicit setting, premise, and theme into the core package -- something that all earlier editions of D&D lack. In this regard, D&D 4e is shaping up to be much more "game" than simple "rules".

The biggest difference in the 3e/4e setting is that the 4e setting is internally consistent, while the 3e setting was a hodgepodge of Greyhawk and things from other settings that were then 'cribbed' into Greyhawk, for a very apparent lack of consistency.

 

[jdrakeh]

I like your definition of rules and system and seems to cover older editions of DnD well.

Thanks but, again, it's not really mine -- thank Steve Jackson and his GURPS foreword

But I think that, especially as the PoL setting is not going to be fully developed, 4E is no less of a set of rules than previous. Yes there is fluff/setting there but there always has been.

Well, 4e differs in one notable way -- it has an explicit as opposed to an implied setting. There will actually be a detailed village/town in the 4e core rules, right? That's a huge difference. No edition of D&D has ever had that other than the Rules Cyclopedia (it includes a brief overview of Mystara and the Hollow World) and it, arguably, was a game as opposed to a rule set because of the inclusion (under Jackson's definitions).

 

[Simon Marks]

How so? Well, I am getting ahead of myself. First, what premise? D&D has never had a singular play premise (well, maybe OD&D, but I wouldn't know). They have all run the gamut from dungeon crawling to sword and sorcery pulp adventure to high fantasy questing to planespanning cosmic wierdness.

Ok, try this.

1) You get better at doing things by overcoming obstacles.

That premise is firmly, deeply entrenched in D&D - but is easy to alter.

2) Magic is more effective than Science, but is limited to a few.

So, for example, all swords created with Science are equal - and almost all are worse than one created in conjunction with Magic. Repeat for all other technological goods. Altered in Blackmoore, to a degree.

3) Permanent Impairment is rare, you are either fine or dead. In the long term (used to be in the short term as well, 3.X altered that) certainly.

4) Armour is all or nothing, either it stops a blow or it doesn't.

5) Skill doesn't directly effect the degree of success, only the frequency of success.

6) Whilst they are able to use magic, Humans (and many other races) are inherently non-magical

7) (in OD&D) Wealth is a way of measuring skill (i.e. GP = XP)

8) Retraining is near impossible, or actually impossible.

9) Using poisons is either cheating or evil.

I can go on, but that's not the point of this thread.

Individually, these premises can be changed. Some of them a trivial to change.
However, changing all the basic premises of D&D - the assumptions the D&D makes about the nature of reality - stops it being D&D. Why would you want that?

What D&D is 'about' is easy to change, where D&D is set is easy to change. That doesn't make D&D a generic game. D&D has, and always has, "felt like" D&D to me because of the premises above. Each iteration of the game has had different premises. Actually, they have mostly had the same premises - some have changed.

For me, 4e changes some of the premises (I guess) but almost all the ones I've mentioned? They are kept. D&D has a Genre (as does every game I guess). 4e seems to announce the premises a bit more. Could be a good thing.

Ok, rambled enough.

 

[The Little Raven]

No edition of D&D has ever had that other than the Rules Cyclopedia (it includes a brief overview of Mystara and the Hollow World) and it, arguably, was a game as opposed to a rule set because of the inclusion (under Jackson's definitions).

Most editions of D&D weren't geared towards new gamers and DMs, though (BECMI and it's Rules Cyclpedia are a notable exception). Most assumed experience, which is why so much of the DMG, especially, was geared towards tables and charts rather than essays and explanations of concepts. Most new DMs will find the 3e (and earlier) DMG a bit overwhelming when trying to learn how to play.

Putting a town in the DMG allows them to sit down, and jump right into the game, and learn as they go along. Previous DMGs required you to do worldbuilding before you could start playing, since you had to figure out their starting location and all that.

 

[Lurker37]

Since there have been complaints about lack of bias in other posts:

BAD: Golden Wyvern Adepts exist
WORSE: the Golden Wyvern Adept is a member of the GW school started by 7 mages named ... in the town of ... after the battle of ...

[Edited to reflect my personal point of view]

If I'm running a game, I do not want to be told what I must include in it. If I want, for example, to run a game where magic is scare, misunderstood and generally frowned upon, and only one or two people in an entire country able to harness it, then I absolutely do not want to include any magical orders, and having feats named after said orders is both inconvenient for me and possibly confusing for my players - to the point where it has the potential to disrupt play.

If I'm running a game where magic is common, and taught and controlled strictly by the state, then I want the training to come from the state academies, and not from some secret (and probably illegal) order. Again, the feat names actively interfere with the running of the game.

Finally, if I'm running a game where such orders do exist, I want the freedom to make up my own names for them to fit the setting, not be obliged to use theirs.

The same applies to martial feats, races etc etc etc.

I have never used a prefabricated setting, and never intend to. For me, D&D isn't about playing a provided setting - it's about having the tools to build your own. For the first time in 30 years, it looks like an edition of D&D is going to hinder that.

I am disappointed that the writers have apparently chosen to go this route. I'm not sure they realised how much of the D&D market doesn't actually play in their published settings. Or perhaps they do and thought this would force us to adopt them.

Either way, I'm worried, and hoping that we're all reading too much into the information we have so far.