Does 4e limit the scope of campaigns?

[jbear]

@Gnomeworks

You talk about tone and arrogance, yet you're own posts are brimming with both:
'ridiculous', 'you people', 'what is this 'forced' crap?','Imagine that...'etc.

I think there's a phrase in the bible about that, something about a log and a splinter.

Considering the title of the thread I can understand how, for your style game, you would find the 4e system restrictive. I also imagine you'd feel the same about any change to a different system after investing so much time and detail over 13 years of gaming.

Where you lose me is your disinterest in 'fun' and 'drama'. Especially considering the exasperation at others preference for this style. I would go so far as to say, it is not that 4e would restrict your style of play, rather your style of play is totally opposed to the 4e play style philosophy.

I imagine the 'Say Yes' to your players rule is equally as ridiculous for you. Others, like myself have found this rule refreshing and liberating.

Also I think it's important to take into consideration, not everyone has the time available to develop their world to the kind of depth where a wiki might be necessary.
I don't think this makes their game, or their fantasy world ridiculous or any less believable than yours. Even our world (earth I mean), devoid of mystery and magic is a dynamic place, teeming with change, teeming with things quite ridiculous, happening at every moment.

I guess I like to be able to step away from that world for a while and go to a place where you can bend the rules, be amazing and save the world just in time, or die gloriously trying with a smile spread from ear to ear.

This does not mean I have no interest in creating a rich, 'believable', and consistent place for my players to explore, to get lost and find epic adventures in. But all my players know its just a game, a game that depends heavily on my imagination/improvisation and I don't think anyone would hold a small error or lack of consistency on my part against me. I try and do my best but I'm only human, I have a Job and a family and other interest and projects other than dnd. The time I do invest in the game, I do it with passion and love, but you can be sure, that preparation is a means to an end; the end for me, is we all have fun. fullstop. no argument will ever convince me that there is something more important or fundamental than that.

 

[GnomeWorks]

You talk about tone and arrogance, yet you're own posts are brimming with both:
'ridiculous', 'you people', 'what is this 'forced' crap?','Imagine that...'etc.

I am defensive because I'm tired of my particular approach to gaming being treated as though it were inferior or somehow dysfunctional.

I think there's a phrase in the bible about that, something about a log and a splinter.

No religion, kthx.

Where you lose me is your disinterest in 'fun' and 'drama'. Especially considering the exasperation at others preference for this style. I would go so far as to say, it is not that 4e would restrict your style of play, rather your style of play is totally opposed to the 4e play style philosophy.

As pointed out several pages ago (which you may not have read), "fun" is not the purpose of the game. We play the game for a variety of reasons, because we find those reasons fun.

I find fun in gaming the way I do. You do not find my way fun. This is fine.

I am uninterested in drama. "Drama" and "fun" are not, for me, synonymous.

I imagine the 'Say Yes' to your players rule is equally as ridiculous for you. Others, like myself have found this rule refreshing and liberating.

It really is. That you and others find it "refreshing and liberating" is fine. For me, it is absurd.

Also I think it's important to take into consideration, not everyone has the time available to develop their world to the kind of depth where a wiki might be necessary.

I'm not trying to convince people that my way is superior. I am trying to get across that my approach is as equally valid as that of anyone else, and that I am not "doing it wrong" or what-have-you.

I am aware that not everyone has the kind of time to spend on their settings that I do. I do not have a problem with people playing the game differently than I; we are all different folk, and have different interests. I take issue with people trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong.

I don't think anyone would hold a small error or lack of consistency on my part against me.

I do not try for a high level of consistency for my players. I do it because I, as a DM, would have great difficulty running a setting that is not internally-consistent.

Whether or not my players - or anyone else, for that matter - would hold it against me is not my concern. I would hold it against myself.

 

[jbear]

To my mind, this is best modeled by the "You can Take 10 when you're not stressed" mechanic.

So... lets say juggling is DC15, if you're chilled out you can take 10. Juggling with your eyes closed DC20?...

Juggling in front of 40000 people is still DC15? Sounds like something Epic to me.
Not to mention Juggling with your eyes closed.

And yet it's still exactly the same action you've done and succeeded at a million times...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Where you lose me is your disinterest in 'fun' and 'drama'.

IME, more fun and drama arise spontaneously from dealing with a consistent setting than one gains from "planned" fun and drama. IME, this is not a minor difference in both quality and quantity; it is an enormous difference. Cats and dogs. Day and night.

Your experience may vary, for a variety of reasons, but I have never seen anyone who could pull off a consistent setting do a better job by choosing to do something else, and I have never seen anyone do even remotely as well with off-the-cuff as I have seen with a consistent setting.

A consistent setting, a sandbox, where the PCs are not special snowflakes, is the hands-down winner IME and IMHO. That's been true for 30 years, through several states, and in two countries. I don't expect it will change any time soon.

YMMV, of course.

I have no interest in "special snowflake" settings, myself, from either side of the screen.


RC

 

[jbear]

I am defensive because I'm tired of my particular approach to gaming being treated as though it were inferior or somehow dysfunctional.



No religion, kthx.



As pointed out several pages ago (which you may not have read), "fun" is not the purpose of the game. We play the game for a variety of reasons, because we find those reasons fun.

I find fun in gaming the way I do. You do not find my way fun. This is fine.

I am uninterested in drama. "Drama" and "fun" are not, for me, synonymous.



It really is. That you and others find it "refreshing and liberating" is fine. For me, it is absurd.



I'm not trying to convince people that my way is superior. I am trying to get across that my approach is as equally valid as that of anyone else, and that I am not "doing it wrong" or what-have-you.

I am aware that not everyone has the kind of time to spend on their settings that I do. I do not have a problem with people playing the game differently than I; we are all different folk, and have different interests. I take issue with people trying to tell me that I'm doing it wrong.



I do not try for a high level of consistency for my players. I do it because I, as a DM, would have great difficulty running a setting that is not internally-consistent.

Whether or not my players - or anyone else, for that matter - would hold it against me is not my concern. I would hold it against myself.

Ok, the log from one's own eye is probably Aesop's Fables as well, better?. I'm not religious, but the Bible still has many pearls of wisdom. Find the pearls in the pig trough shall we say.

Yes, I read what you wrote about fun, and I got the impression that drama and fun are neither synonymous or essential in your game. As I said before, this is where you lost me. I can imagine the investment and energy you have invested in your world is monumental.

Where I personally disagree is that 4e's have fun/say yes philosophy should be recriminated for being 'restrictive to one's game', although funnily enough, obviously in your case that is so.

You say you're not trying to convince anyone that they are doing it wrong, yet you do use phrases like :"No, they are not" (referring to PC's being special), which don't leave room for much doubt you think they are doing it wrong.

If you have players that are into your game then great. 4e isn't for you, but I don't think you'd be willing to change to any other system no matter what it was, considering all the work you've put into your game. That doesn't mean that 'Everyone Should Have Fun' as a design philosophy for a game is a bad design.

 

[Scribble]

To each his/her own.

Some people like to play how Gnomeworks plays. Other people don't. If the people playing the game are having fun doing it, then it's a good way to do it.

Personally I don't have any problems with how GW wants to run his campaign, but I've done that style before, and felt no added benefit. Just a lot of extra behind the scenes bookwork that never saw the table. If it's fun for him, and his players though, keep on truckin.

I think if I were playing in GW's campaign I'd be evil... and do my best to destroy the world. Just to be a dick.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Yes, I read what you wrote about fun, and I got the impression that drama and fun are neither synonymous or essential in your game. As I said before, this is where you lost me.

The idea of "we game to have fun" strikes me as absurd. As a player or DM, each of us enjoys something about the game, which is what we find fun. In the end, sure, the idea is to "have fun," but you can't just come out and say it that way. There is a process involved, and the steps in-between need to be acknowledged.

As for drama, I have no use for it.

You say you're not trying to convince anyone that they are doing it wrong, yet you do use phrases like :"No, they are not" (referring to PC's being special), which don't leave room for much doubt you think they are doing it wrong.

And I'm also liberally using such phrases as "you think X, I think !X, and this is fine."

Sorry, but continually pointing out that what I am writing is IMO and IME gets annoying, and I assume - perhaps wrongly - that it is understood that the things I say are IMO/IME.

If you have players that are into your game then great. 4e isn't for you, but I don't think you'd be willing to change to any other system no matter what it was.

No, 4e isn't. At this point I'll admit I don't even remember why I got into this thread. I know the topic has shifted quite a bit from its original purpose.

 

[GnomeWorks]

To each his/her own.

Yes.

I think if I were playing in GW's campaign I'd be evil... and do my best to destroy the world. Just to be a dick.

I currently have a player who is working on something along those lines. Not quite world destruction, but definitely world-changing for the worse.

 

[jbear]

IME, more fun and drama arise spontaneously from dealing with a consistent setting than one gains from "planned" fun and drama. IME, this is not a minor difference in both quality and quantity; it is an enormous difference. Cats and dogs. Day and night.

Your experience may vary, for a variety of reasons, but I have never seen anyone who could pull off a consistent setting do a better job by choosing to do something else, and I have never seen anyone do even remotely as well with off-the-cuff as I have seen with a consistent setting.

A consistent setting, a sandbox, where the PCs are not special snowflakes, is the hands-down winner IME and IMHO. That's been true for 30 years, through several states, and in two countries. I don't expect it will change any time soon.

YMMV, of course.

I have no interest in "special snowflake" settings, myself, from either side of the screen.


RC

Yes, you could also play in a real world setting as a dustman, or an office worker, and it would be very consisent and even more believable than your consistent pseudo-believable fantasy world.

Nevertheless I begin to digress. If I were to read between the lines, I get the impression you imagine me just throwing out silly things, lets say swarms of flying vampire monkeys that wear pink underpants on their head or hoards of zombie bananas, to amuse my players.

Well that's not the case. But if I have to choose between end of the world and having my PC's arrive in time to at least have a chance at saving the world, it's a no brainer. No amount of consistency or 'realism' would outweigh my prefence for a dramatic finalee, where both failure and success are options, but simply not arriving on time is lights out, pack up, go home.

And if you don't want your heroes to be heroes...? Ok.

My players do want to be kick arse heroes. You're 30 years gaming on however many continents, and in how ever many places is valid. For you.

If that is more fun for you, each to there own.

 

[jbear]

The idea of "we game to have fun" strikes me as absurd. As a player or DM, each of us enjoys something about the game, which is what we find fun. In the end, sure, the idea is to "have fun," but you can't just come out and say it that way. There is a process involved, and the steps in-between need to be acknowledged.

As for drama, I have no use for it.



And I'm also liberally using such phrases as "you think X, I think !X, and this is fine."

Sorry, but continually pointing out that what I am writing is IMO and IME gets annoying, and I assume - perhaps wrongly - that it is understood that the things I say are IMO/IME.



No, 4e isn't. At this point I'll admit I don't even remember why I got into this thread. I know the topic has shifted quite a bit from its original purpose.

Btw: We game to have fun