Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6241183" data-attributes="member: 85870"><p>I was very much using it in a "Forge-ist" sense, @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em>. But my problem with your response isn't with the response itself, but with your assumption that your accepted play style, i.e., "pemertonian scene framing," is easily grasped by a "typical" D&D play group. From your perspective, 4e isn't gamist---because you very thoroughly push the (what seem obvious to you) "narrative" dials within it to set up your group's preferred fictional positioning. </p><p></p><p>However, for anyone who doesn't grasp the narrative positioning and scene framing aspects--and everything I've ever heard from you, and @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971" target="_blank">Manbearcat</a></u></strong></em>, and other "scene framing" advocates, your playstyle is simply not explicit in the core 4e texts. </p><p></p><p>And if you do not apply your "scene framing" bent to the 4e core rules, then yes, D&D 4e is hands down, far and away the most gamist version of D&D ever, and second place is not even close (I would probably say 1e is the second most gamist after 4e).</p><p></p><p>Nearly EVERYTHING in the "prima facie" presentation of the 4e ruleset, ESPECIALLY in the original "Core 3," is all based on scene-level, encounter based challenges, with combat being the primary "frameset," and skill challenges the secondary. </p><p></p><p>In this case, pemerton, @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=59082" target="_blank">Mercurius</a></u></strong></em> and Marshall McLuhan is right --- the <em>medium</em> of 4e is the <em>message</em> --- the entire presentation of the 4e PHB is about <em>getting each classes' powers in front of the player in the most straightforward, unambiguous way possible.</em></p><p></p><p>Why? Because powers are the primary mechanical construct used by players to face encounter challenges----which forcefully communicates to the player, regardless of any surrounding material, that facing and defeating challenges is, in fact, the primary function of the 4e game itself. </p><p></p><p>That is 100%, unequivocally a gamist mindset. Period. Full Stop.</p><p></p><p>Now admittedly, 1e has metric TON of gamism built into it as well. But it's not couched or presented in the same straightforwardly gamist manner. The 1e DMG and Monster Manual go beyond strict gamism to present its material. Now, you've repeatedly stated you don't like "Gygaxian Naturalism," which is perfectly valid. However, whether you like it or not, the whole point of "Gygaxian Naturalism" is that it makes an attempt to provide some semi-realistic context for the gamist challenges--which 4e has virtually none of, and in fact makes a POINT to go out of its way to downplay. There's almost zero of this same "naturalist" approach to encounters in 4e. To the player, it's just power after power, page after page, with maximum white space in between, emphasizing just how important the "step on up" is going to be in 4e, and that a character's powers are going to be the primary way those encounters are resolved. </p><p></p><p>The fact that you have managed to create a quite different experience pushing some other levers that seem obvious to you does not change the "at face value" presentation of the core 4e material. Other than with a few very gifted GMs like yourself, @<em><strong><u><a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a></u></strong></em>, I suspect your narrativist "scene framing" approach is far from common to the 4e crowd at large. Most typical gaming groups are going to play it straight up---"Here's a challenge, use your resources to defeat it." </p><p></p><p>That is the ultimate expression of gamism. There's literally no other way to interpret it. </p><p></p><p>If "pemertonian scene framing" for 4e was easy to "grok," and was providing the same kinds of experiences as it is for your group for the D&D fan base at large, then why did the bulk of the fan base--to say nothing of the company that produced it--largely abandon it? </p><p></p><p>To me this was and is a clear signal from the fan base to the makers of the game---we want less gamism, not more; we want a more "naturalist" approach to encounter design. If the collective "We," meaning the "average" D&D game group, has to indulge Gamist Player Bob in his need to "step on up," there'd better be a very, very good counter-payoff that makes an RPG experience wholly unique as a social and entertainment art form, one that is DIFFERENT from the thousands upon thousands of other gamist, "step on up" avenues Bob has at his disposal.</p><p></p><p>RPGs only matter as an entertainment form BECAUSE they inherently offer more than "step on up."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6241183, member: 85870"] I was very much using it in a "Forge-ist" sense, @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I]. But my problem with your response isn't with the response itself, but with your assumption that your accepted play style, i.e., "pemertonian scene framing," is easily grasped by a "typical" D&D play group. From your perspective, 4e isn't gamist---because you very thoroughly push the (what seem obvious to you) "narrative" dials within it to set up your group's preferred fictional positioning. However, for anyone who doesn't grasp the narrative positioning and scene framing aspects--and everything I've ever heard from you, and @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=6696971"]Manbearcat[/URL][/U][/B][/I], and other "scene framing" advocates, your playstyle is simply not explicit in the core 4e texts. And if you do not apply your "scene framing" bent to the 4e core rules, then yes, D&D 4e is hands down, far and away the most gamist version of D&D ever, and second place is not even close (I would probably say 1e is the second most gamist after 4e). Nearly EVERYTHING in the "prima facie" presentation of the 4e ruleset, ESPECIALLY in the original "Core 3," is all based on scene-level, encounter based challenges, with combat being the primary "frameset," and skill challenges the secondary. In this case, pemerton, @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=59082"]Mercurius[/URL][/U][/B][/I] and Marshall McLuhan is right --- the [I]medium[/I] of 4e is the [I]message[/I] --- the entire presentation of the 4e PHB is about [I]getting each classes' powers in front of the player in the most straightforward, unambiguous way possible.[/I] Why? Because powers are the primary mechanical construct used by players to face encounter challenges----which forcefully communicates to the player, regardless of any surrounding material, that facing and defeating challenges is, in fact, the primary function of the 4e game itself. That is 100%, unequivocally a gamist mindset. Period. Full Stop. Now admittedly, 1e has metric TON of gamism built into it as well. But it's not couched or presented in the same straightforwardly gamist manner. The 1e DMG and Monster Manual go beyond strict gamism to present its material. Now, you've repeatedly stated you don't like "Gygaxian Naturalism," which is perfectly valid. However, whether you like it or not, the whole point of "Gygaxian Naturalism" is that it makes an attempt to provide some semi-realistic context for the gamist challenges--which 4e has virtually none of, and in fact makes a POINT to go out of its way to downplay. There's almost zero of this same "naturalist" approach to encounters in 4e. To the player, it's just power after power, page after page, with maximum white space in between, emphasizing just how important the "step on up" is going to be in 4e, and that a character's powers are going to be the primary way those encounters are resolved. The fact that you have managed to create a quite different experience pushing some other levers that seem obvious to you does not change the "at face value" presentation of the core 4e material. Other than with a few very gifted GMs like yourself, @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582"]pemerton[/URL][/U][/B][/I], I suspect your narrativist "scene framing" approach is far from common to the 4e crowd at large. Most typical gaming groups are going to play it straight up---"Here's a challenge, use your resources to defeat it." That is the ultimate expression of gamism. There's literally no other way to interpret it. If "pemertonian scene framing" for 4e was easy to "grok," and was providing the same kinds of experiences as it is for your group for the D&D fan base at large, then why did the bulk of the fan base--to say nothing of the company that produced it--largely abandon it? To me this was and is a clear signal from the fan base to the makers of the game---we want less gamism, not more; we want a more "naturalist" approach to encounter design. If the collective "We," meaning the "average" D&D game group, has to indulge Gamist Player Bob in his need to "step on up," there'd better be a very, very good counter-payoff that makes an RPG experience wholly unique as a social and entertainment art form, one that is DIFFERENT from the thousands upon thousands of other gamist, "step on up" avenues Bob has at his disposal. RPGs only matter as an entertainment form BECAUSE they inherently offer more than "step on up." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why the claim of combat and class balance between the classes is mainly a forum issue. (In my opinion)
Top