Where is the focus of the game (Forked Thread: 4E reminded me how much I like 3E)

[AllisterH]

For me, the best example of the difference is that 3E is Constructed while 4E is Limited (Draft).

In constructed, 90% of what determines what wins, depends on the build of the deck. Build of the deck is a pre-game feature.

In Lmited, it's closer to 50/50 in that the build does help your success, but also that your actual play skill is equally as important.

Even how the game plays out is like that. For example, in Constructed, when building a deck, you have WAY more choices than in Limited, but when you actally play the game, the Limited deck actually will have more interaction with the board.

Metagaming in D&D is say, deciding not to play a rogue since you know the DM likes using Ravenloft modules/adventures/settings

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Whether the word "metagame" is applicable or not (I think it is), everybody seems okay with "at the table" vs. "away from the table" so I'll go with that phrasing. (Metagaming has a split in usage even in terms of "OOC information", and I think that whether or not your character acts on your player knowledge or not is perfectly fine in a lot of situations, but that's another discussion.)

I think the 4e books definately address this. There are a lot of rules questions that can come up where the answer according to 4e is "Ask your GM, by the way here's some guidelines he can use to make his decision". So for a lot of things that could come up, there is no "away from the table" answer. The design decision was to make a game first and foremost rather than a closed simulation that you could envision "running on its own".

I've felt for a while that 3.x wanted to be "complete" in the absence of a GM, 4e does not try to do that. I think it's a better game for it, but that's just personal preference.

 

[jmucchiello]

Just a little side track... that is not the metagame.

So then what is it? How about exogame? That roughly means out of game. I suppose abgame or agame could work, meaning away from game.

 

[Mercule]

At first blush (i.e. I reserve the right to change my mind on further thought), I have to agree with Wulf on much of what he said. One thing I'm definitely wanting to get away from with 3e is the game away from the table. That's why 4e appeals to me.

On the other hand, I'm the guy in my group that enjoys just sitting down and making up characters. That's pretty much the reason I started primarily DMing 20 years ago. I used to sit around and spend 12+ hours just building a PC (not NPC) for Shadowrun or Hero. Still, there is something about the way the 3e game away from the table works that frustrates me, and has for years. It's not just the prep work.

It may be because I prefer monster-low campaigns that focus on PC races, and those are what are more difficult to prep in 3e. I'm quite certain that a critter-based campaign would be a lot easier to deal with.

Honestly, though, the only reason I'd ever consider a class/level based system is ease of use. Seriously. If you're planning on spending a good amount of time away from the table running numbers, just call it a day and use a system with better suited to it, like Hero or GURPS? Personally, I prefer to spend my prep time doing story and worldbuilding.

 

[Walknot]

Like you Mercule, have always loved making characters. But probably unlike you, have always not been too good at it. Probably having too much fun with concepts to make effective build choices.

Anyway, 4E seems to take the sting out of that by making it much harder to make unplayable builds. But, at the same time, there is still enough flexiibility to allow as much imagination as before.

 

[Thanee]

Of course, it's maybe a bit unfair to compare 3E with its hundreds of books to 4E with just the three of them right now.

I honestly don't know anymore whether it was the same with just the three 3E Core rulebooks, but it surely was a lot less "away from the table" gaming than during the later years.

In 4E I also see that you could spend quite some time just looking through the available options (instead of playing), though building characters is obviously a lot more streamlined and focused now, mainly because it is more limited, more predetermined.

To draw in new players, this is certainly a step into the right direction.

Whether it will hold up in future, only time can tell.

I think they will have to make lots of books with new options to keep things interesting. Just like the MMOs, which have to constantly evolve and expand to keep the players interested.

The 3E Core (on their own) books definitely had a longer longevity just by themselves than what I believe the 4E Core books (alone) will be able to provide.

limited options = limited fun in the long run

Bye
Thanee

 

[rounser]

And for the record, I think that's the right approach to bring more people into D&D. (And that bringing more people into D&D is the right approach for the game.)

I don't think they went far enough. If they'd turned that up to 11, and made D&D into a game which required no prep, it would (a) begin to look a lot more like a boardgame, and (b) open up a huge untapped audience for the game.

I'd also be right behind it, dragonborn warlords or not.

Right now it's kind of halfway, and trying to keep a foot in both worlds. It's difficult to reconcile the game logic of the battlemap with the worldbuilding logic of the overworld. I think that the next direction for D&D would be to abstract the overworld, because WOTC have clearly come down on the side of battlemap logic and crunch-based-gameplay fun (rather than immersion, worldbuilding, and fantasy-novel-simulation fun). The overworld and suspension of disbelief are already compromised by such an approach, so may as well abstract the overworld so that the specifics no longer matter. Like in a boardgame, or M:tG. (And no, I'm not having a go by making this comparison or suggestion - I think a D&D of this sort would rock on toast. No idea how or whether it would be practical, though.)

 

[HalWhitewyrm]

Wulf, thanks for your explanation. It matches what my gut feeling was of what you said and the vibe I'm getting off 4e as I read it. I think we'll see a bit more of the game-away-from-the-game in 4e as more sourcebooks begin to appear, though, and it will be interesting to see how it stacks up vis-a-vis 3e in that dept. a couple of years down the road.

 

[Mercule]

Like you Mercule, have always loved making characters. But probably unlike you, have always not been too good at it. Probably having too much fun with concepts to make effective build choices.

I'm more concept, too. I can do good martial builds, but I've been bad at wizards all the way back to magic-users in 1e (and before). Really, it's only D&D where I have a hard time with arcanist builds. I'm hoping 4e changes that.

Of course, it's maybe a bit unfair to compare 3E with its hundreds of books to 4E with just the three of them right now.

I honestly don't know anymore whether it was the same with just the three 3E Core rulebooks, but it surely was a lot less "away from the table" gaming than during the later years.

Agreed. On both points. 4e may or may not end up with this problem. If it does, I'll have to decide whether I'm willing to accept that, if I can do without some of the options, or if I need to look for a new game.

The 3E Core (on their own) books definitely had a longer longevity just by themselves than what I believe the 4E Core books (alone) will be able to provide.

limited options = limited fun in the long run

This may also be true. Time will tell. Since I've always been the sort to collect many supplements, that doesn't me overmuch -- directly. 3e had the system mastery issue, where you not only had the long menu, but the questions about how certain items on that menu combined. My understanding (and hope) is the 4e minimizes this. Certainly, it can't be eliminated, but I'll be happy if it is significantly reduced from 3e.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Of course, it's maybe a bit unfair to compare 3E with its hundreds of books to 4E with just the three of them right now.

Feel free to trot that quote out anytime folks talk about how much simpler and easier 4e is to DM.

Goes both ways.

3e isn't particularly difficult either if you limit yourself to the 3 core books...