[Was]Forked Thread: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar : [Is] Playstyle & Evolution Discussion

[Imaro]

Forked from: GTS 2009 D&D Seminar - the Rouse discusses D&D

Yes, but what I think both of you are missing is that... "It's always been like that." becomes less and less of an argument with any validity as people gain easier access to other rpg's. I mean honestly I remember when D&D was the only rpg I knew about... but that time has long since passed and I tend to compare D&D, at least when it comes to my money, with a much wider range of games now.

Heh, tell that to the people still complaining about removal of the Vancian casting system.

D&D has always had a strong tendency to "combat first, everything else second" Sure, plenty of us played D&D with less reliance on dungeons and more on other types of adventures (mysteries, social encounters) but the rules have always been flimsy on it. Clever DMs either didn't bother with rules for RP, or they created them on the spot.

Pop quiz: How many pages in the AD&D1e PHB are devoted to a non-combat skill system? How many are devoted to obscure pole-arms? Case. In. Point.

In other words doing the same thing over and over again, because we did it last time will probably, slowly but eventually, loose WotC a significant portion of their customers (especially as I have the last edition where you gave me the exact same gameplay experience as before.) as they discover other games that meet their needs better or just accomodate a wider variety of desires. One of the reasons, amongst many, I enjoy Reign more than D&D is esoteric disciplines. Not only does Reign give me special combat maneuvers... but it gives me ancient secrets (special maneuvers and knowledge) with skills as well. D&D 4e could have easily done this with the 4e power structure... but they didn't and thus Reign offers me tactical combat and an interesting system for skills, while 4e doesn't... all IMO of course.

See, I don't buy that. 3e promised a "return to the dungeon" feel. Necromancer games and Goodman's DCCs (two of the top sellers in 3PP) sold themselves on that 1e dungeon crawl feel. There are retro-clones all over the place promising that feel of late 70's game play. I don't foresee D&D's primary playstyle (dungeons) fading anytime soon.

In the end the game should evolve, not just in it's presentation and media (DDI) but also in what it offers in gameplay. I think a prime example of this is when you look at SWSE vs. D&D 3.5, the addition of talents evolved the game into a direction where character concepts outside of combat had interesting choices and advantages.

Are you talking about Saga edition? Where your non-combat related feats consist of skill focus, linguist, and skill training? Its nearly impossible to build a Saga PC that can't kick-ass in combat! (Then again, this is Star Wars were senators are crack-shots and the Imperial Chancellor is a Sith Lord, so...)

I just don't see D&D's emphasis on combat being a primary focus going away in any edition. Its too central to D&D's identity.

 

[Imaro]

Heh, tell that to the people still complaining about removal of the Vancian casting system.

D&D has always had a strong tendency to "combat first, everything else second" Sure, plenty of us played D&D with less reliance on dungeons and more on other types of adventures (mysteries, social encounters) but the rules have always been flimsy on it. Clever DMs either didn't bother with rules for RP, or they created them on the spot.

Pop quiz: How many pages in the AD&D1e PHB are devoted to a non-combat skill system? How many are devoted to obscure pole-arms? Case. In. Point.

Case in point of what? And what does a vancian spellcasting system have to do with what we are discussing? D&D must compete with a growing awareness amongst gamers of various rpg's... thus it must evolve and adapt to compete with these. While 3.5 wasn't perfect and definitely was combat focused... it was also the first edition to have a fully fleshed out skill system, as well as non-combat feats. This was a move in the right direction, it opened D&D up to a wider realm of playstyles and made it more competitive with games utilizing more current design principles.

See, I don't buy that. 3e promised a "return to the dungeon" feel. Necromancer games and Goodman's DCCs (two of the top sellers in 3PP) sold themselves on that 1e dungeon crawl feel. There are retro-clones all over the place promising that feel of late 70's game play. I don't foresee D&D's primary playstyle (dungeons) fading anytime soon.

And again, 3.5 added a more solid foundation for the game to do the dungeoncrawl as well as go beyond the dungeoncrawl... regardless of what it's marketing was based around (which was probably more in response to just how far 2e had gone in the other direction as well as how much product 2e had already produced in the other direction), which with so many OGL/d20 publishers IMO wasn't restricted to only dungeoncrawls, but whatever.

Yet the designers of 4e chose to go in a different direction, they evolved combat but gave us half-developed rules for play outside of combat and a condensed skill list. Now what really is the reason 4e couldn't have both an evolved combat system and an evolved skill system?... because it seems to me you are arguing they are mutually exclusive, when they're not.

Are you talking about Saga edition? Where your non-combat related feats consist of skill focus, linguist, and skill training? Its nearly impossible to build a Saga PC that can't kick-ass in combat! (Then again, this is Star Wars were senators are crack-shots and the Imperial Chancellor is a Sith Lord, so...)

Yes because a noble is just as effective in combat as a soldier... not. Also are you purposefully ignoring the talents, some may have combat applications but quite a few have non-combat applications as well. You know talents like...

Presence, Inspire Confidence, Coordinate, Connections, Educated, Spontaneous Skill, Wealth, Fool's Luck, Gambler, Knack, Gimmick, Master Slicer, Trace, Hyperdriven, Acute Senses, Expert Tracker, Hidden Movement, Improved Stealth, Total Concealment, Barter, Fringe Savant, Jury-Rigger, Extreme Effort, and so on (because I'm not going to list everynon-combat applicable talent, just from the corebook.

I just don't see D&D's emphasis on combat being a primary focus going away in any edition. Its too central to D&D's identity.

And no one is claiming it has too, just add more to it. As an example, you can have a shooter videogame that's great... and then in it's next iteration give it multi-player capability, or a story based mission mode. These features appeal to a wider fan base but haven't changed it's main emphasis on shooting things. The multi-player and story-based aspects can easily be ignored by those who want to... but generally makes it a more appealing game to others.

 

[D'karr]

Don't you guys get tired of this?

Same thread as many others. You're not going to convince anyone and nobody is going to convince you. We get it.

How about we give it a rest?

 

[xechnao]

I think the problem with 4e is that 80% of the books and of the game line are just combat tactical powers, all of them operating through the same mechanism, and playing out combats using this high amount of rules ends up being overwhelming after some games.
IMO the game should be made so to provide such a tactical fighting feeling but with less rules. Perhaps make rules more abstract -for example there is no real gameplay need to have to count squares on a board if what you want is to reach or try to reach some significant point in the combat field.

 

[Derren]

Even more abstract rules will likely drive quite a lot of people away.

They should simply make an "Unearthed Arcana" style book for out of combat/role playing, with an optional advanced skill system, a "out of combat power/class feature" system for each existing class and guidlines to create such things by yourself and lots of example role playing plots (not just hooks, but the whole plots) and of course more role playing advice.

Such a book would get even me to play 4E.

 

[Imaro]

Don't you guys get tired of this?

Same thread as many others. You're not going to convince anyone and nobody is going to convince you. We get it.

How about we give it a rest?

I didn't realize it was mandatory to read or post in a thread one was not interested in.

 

[Victim]

Yes, but what I think both of you are missing is that... "It's always been like that." becomes less and less of an argument with any validity as people gain easier access to other rpg's. I mean honestly I remember when D&D was the only rpg I knew about... but that time has long since passed and I tend to compare D&D, at least when it comes to my money, with a much wider range of games now.

Yes. That's exactly why DnD should focus on its core elements like combat.

Trying to be all things to all people doesn't seem like a real recipe for success; a compromise game won't really please anyone.

 

[xechnao]

Even more abstract rules will likely drive quite a lot of people away.

I wasn't clear enough. Rules are abstract already but are linked to physical objects: minis and squares. This IMO makes the game overwhelming, probably only because it IS a group game, unlike say chess or MtG where you are only two. By "more abstract" I intended to say to scrap off the factors of these physical objects and remain in the abstract only realm of mechanics. After all a rpg is a game of imagination.
For example regarding movement and positioning: just roll a die to see if you can reach your target or how exposed you end up being if you do not succeed.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Absolutely correct but I know what the poster is talking about. It's a back and forth but it never really seems to go no where just has new posters.

For myself, I share the concerns that 4e's game play is by default heavily based on combat. But it's always been that way. Some may feel that it shouldn't be. I would argue that all of the default tools you need to insure that it isn't, are already in the book. In many instances, the play style of the group will determine much of what happens in the actual game. Some are looking at the new Homlet as a role playing gold mind.

It wasn't. Lots of minor details from back in the day required the GM to flex his mental muscles to build it into those role playing opportunities. In some aspects, this may be what D&D needs in terms of more, "Hey, you CAN play it this way. Instead of just attacking, you can do X, Y, and Z." If the rules have replaced imagination, is it the rules fault or the players fault for not striving for more immersion?

 

[Derren]

For example regarding movement and positioning: just roll a die to see if you can reach your target or how exposed you end up being if you do not succeed.

Imo that would make 4E even more into a tactical wargame.