Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.

[timbannock]

So, you have never been moved by entertainment? never had emotions or feelings stirred within you, beyond simple "fun"? Never found fiction or music or film thought provoking or creatively inspiring?

My condolences.

That's really not what he said nor implied.

Back on topic, I have to agree that for RPGs, no single RPG has made me feel like it lacked heart and soul. Some games were poorly put together or had (sometimes many) other problems, but not one felt like it was lacking at least some amount of investment by the author to have "something to it."

But that intangible "something" is meaningless if, when you actually run the game, you don't put some kind of emotional/work/personal investment into the game. Basically, you can pretty much run any RPG any way you want...that's sort of the charm of them. You can houserule stuff, ignore the published settings, borrow from other sources, etc.

If you can make something fun from all that, then who cares about the underlying game? Some games are obviously better fits for different people, and that makes them better/more fun for that person.

All of that said, 4E is no more soulless or heartless or whatever than any previous edition, but it certainly is different, and had very different design goals and you're within your rights to love it, hate it, sit on the fence, or not care.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I bet very few people's cinematic intake consists solely of Spiderman 3.

Oops. I was referring to how some people only play D&D and don't try other systems.

 

[LostSoul]

So, you have never been moved by entertainment? never had emotions or feelings stirred within you, beyond simple "fun"? Never found fiction or music or film thought provoking or creatively inspiring?

My condolences.

Is it your contention that D&D 4e cannot:

• move someone? (By that I imagine you mean "get an emotional response.")
• stir emotions or feelings beyond simple "fun"?
• provoke thought?
• inspire creativity?

 

[Jack Colby]

AD&D as written, with its experience awards based on gold gained, its brutal death for characters, and its support for thieves, assassins, and illusionists whose main contribution to the game are out of combat makes it clear to me now (as opposed to when I was 13) to bring the focus of the game on acquiring wealth, but not through fighting. In fact, the scarcity of healing and magical spells support the idea of trying to find ways to avoid conflict early in the game. It's not a game of killing things and taking their stuff. It's a game about finding clever and sneaky ways of getting stuff.

Thank you for this... if I used sig lines I'd want to borrow the bolded part. I am so sick of older D&D being summed up (usually so it may be dismissed) using that overly-simplistic and wrong-headed phrase about killing things and taking their stuff. 'Twas not the case in older editions! If you need the treasure to succeed and level up, and the fights are deadly, why the heck would you just go killing things? Best to avoid combat when possible and think your way into the big treasure vault.

 

[Reynard]

Is it your contention that D&D 4e cannot:

• move someone? (By that I imagine you mean "get an emotional response.")
• stir emotions or feelings beyond simple "fun"?
• provoke thought?
• inspire creativity?

No. I am questioning why Hussar would give the big fat :rollseyes: to the idea of a game (or movie) having to have some emotional substance to it for it to be worthwhile, and his apparent inability to understand why some people might put that in the forefront of judgement regarding a particular game (or movie), as opposed to simply whether it's "fun".

I think I made it pretty clear in my original post that I was talking aboutmypreferences and my opinions on 4E. If you think a non-immersion, combat centric boardgame style of play is full of "heart and soul", more power to you. I don't. RPGs aren't board games -- the system should slip easily into the backgroun and the milieu should take center stage to facilitate immersive play. 4E, IMO (should I repeat it?), does not. the system is right there in your face all the time, so much so that it is distracting as both a player and a DM.

YMMV.

 

[Imp]

To the people who make movies, Spiderman 3 is a huge success since it made a bajillion dollars.

Sure, but are you the movie-maker? No? Then who cares what their POV is?

I dunno, I never saw Spider-Man 3 on account of everyone said it was bad, but my impression of the reviews was that it was (like X-Men 3) trying to be too many things and fit too many arcs into one little movie and hence it was a mess, which doesn't seem in line with the 4E analogy.

Anyway I don't know if the new edition lacks heart and soul but the books sure could use a bit of it. Which is actually an arc from a number of 3rd-edition materials which are also kind of rote and uninspired.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Anyway I don't know if the new edition lacks heart and soul but the books sure could use a bit of it. Which is actually an arc from a number of 3rd-edition materials which are also kind of rote and uninspired.

Interestingly enough, when the discussion turned this way in the days of 3e, Hussar correctly pointed out that some of the later books were much better than the core books in this regard. An odd position to have taken for someone who claims not to know what is meant by these terms.

In fact, the way that these positions tend to flip-flop makes me think that the "too vague/nebulous" response is often based more on what is intended to be "proven" than anything else.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I certainly am not intending to let statements that the "heart and soul" of a movie, book, or game are too "nebulous" to be taken into consideration stand without comment.


RC

 

[Hussar]

Interestingly enough, when the discussion turned this way in the days of 3e, Hussar correctly pointed out that some of the later books were much better than the core books in this regard. An odd position to have taken for someone who claims not to know what is meant by these terms.

In fact, the way that these positions tend to flip-flop makes me think that the "too vague/nebulous" response is often based more on what is intended to be "proven" than anything else.

Of course, I could be wrong. But I certainly am not intending to let statements that the "heart and soul" of a movie, book, or game are too "nebulous" to be taken into consideration stand without comment.


RC

Wow. Talk about completely twisting whatever I said and trying to tie to points that I completely didn't make.

First off, I do know what is meant. I just choose to pretty much blow it off because I've heard it all before. Trufans said the same thing of 3e that it lacked "heart and soul". Trufans said the same thing about 2e that it lacked "heart and soul". Good grief, this poor game must have negative soul count by now.

Just as a point, I never said that later books had "heart and soul". I said that they were heavier on flavor than earlier books. If flavor=heart and soul of a gaming system, well, that's news to me. I guess, apparently, judging from some reactions, that it is for some people. Since I've never really cared about D&D's flavor, whatever the Hell it was at the time, and went ahead and just played the game to what me and my players wanted, I'd say that "heart and soul" is not tied to flavor for me.

Some people in this thread have talked about 1e being the game where you avoided combat to trick the monsters out of treasure. Sure, I suppose you could play it that way. We never did. We killed everything we could whenever we could. Why avoid encounters? That's just giving away xp.

That's what I mean by nebulous. Because our gaming experiences are so individual and so unique from each other, any of these sorts of "What is D&D" type discussions never go anywhere. We simply do not share enough frames of reference to carry meaningful conversations. One person claims that 1e is all about grim and gritty sword and sorcery. The next talks about high fantasy heroic play. You could certainly do both. Is one playing D&D and the other not? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

Reynard says:

a non-immersion, combat centric boardgame style of play is full of "heart and soul", more power to you. I don't. RPGs aren't board games

as if this were a proven point. As if his experience (or lack thereof) with the system was somehow universal. He claims that the game is non-immersive. Maybe it is for him. That's fine. He claims that it plays like a boardgame. For him that may be true. That's fine too. But, then he tries to make a blanket statement that his impressions of the game are somehow universal - the game has no heart or soul. The only way for this to be true would be for every person who likes the game to be self-delusional freaks who have no idea what D&D should truly be like.

Again, listen to the Penny Arcade podcast of them playing 4e. I defy anyone to say that that's not D&D being played.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Again, listen to the Penny Arcade podcast of them playing 4e. I defy anyone to say that that's not D&D being played.

It certainly wasn't good D&D, though it sounded like they were at least having fun(the most important thing.)

The players weren't familiar with the rules and the DM was a stranger, so the game progressed kind of klunky. It's a credit to the DM that he kept the pace going as well as he did. There wasn't much roleplaying going on other then the guys joking and cutting up. The DM didn't really give them much flavor and background to play off of though(other than a NPC goblin named Plug.) This was understandable given what that session was trying to accomplish, though.

I'd put up with that kind of game from a new group for a few sessions, but if the campaign didn't progress into something with more depth I'd probably drop it and move on.

Under the circumstances just about any FRPG would play like that podcast, D&D or not. That podcast doesn't back up your argument very well(and why do you need it to? 4e says D&D on the cover. Case closed.)

Sam

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It certainly wasn't good D&D, though it sounded like they were at least having fun(the most important thing.)

The players weren't familiar with the rules and the DM was a stranger, so the game progressed kind of klunky. It's a credit to the DM that he kept the pace going as well as he did. There wasn't much roleplaying going on other then the guys joking and cutting up. The DM didn't really give them much flavor and background to play off of though(other than a NPC goblin named Plug.) This was understandable given what that session was trying to accomplish, though.

I'd put up with that kind of game from a new group for a few sessions, but if the campaign didn't progress into something with more depth I'd probably drop it and move on.

Under the circumstances just about any FRPG would play like that podcast, D&D or not. That podcast doesn't back up your argument very well(and why do you need it to? 4e says D&D on the cover. Case closed.)

Sam

All the things that you point as missing (see bolded parts) are not parts that are unique to D&D. Even with this elements, any FRPG would be the same.
These are really not the specialties of D&D. These are the features of any role-playing game.

It is all a matter of association. People that play lots of D&D associate the type of games they play with D&D. The games I play in have a lot of joking going on between players. Hence, the podcast sounded to me like a very typical role-playing game session. The things that made it typical D&D was that they were playing the typical D&D character archetypes against typical D&D monsters (Goblins and Undead - of course, these are not unique to D&D, but they are typical for D&D.)
The dice they rolled (they mentioned them a few times, because at least one of them didn't have his own dice) might have made it more typical D&D. (In Warhammer, they'd have only rolled d10s and d%.)
But - Dice, Classes, Monsters? Is that the "heart" of D&D? Sounds a little to pedestrian for that?
But can it be role-playing a lot or the DM giving flavor and background? I mean, that sounds really important to a game high on the "More Refined Than Mere Hack & Slash"-scale. But is that the "heart" of D&D, if it is something that you would want in any other RPG, be it D&D, Warhammer, Torg, Starwars d6, Starwars Saga Edition, Savage Worlds, Call of Cthulhu, Shadowrun, Rolemaster, Exalted or Changeling: The Lost or any World of Darkness game?

----

So, what was the original topic again?
Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.
They have different goals in some areas. But don't let that fool you to believe that not every edition wanted to be a role-playing game.
The different goals are found on a different level of detail. And I suspect that the goals are often very similar, but the weighting of the differing goals changed.