"HF" vs. "S&S" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D

[Krensky]

Still, can't you say, "You've come a long way, baby"?

Considering that they do less then they did in 3.5 or that similar concepts do in other later generation d20 games, not really.

 

[Korgoth]

Er. . . in Eyes of the Overworld, Cugel tries to rape a woman in a fairly barbaric act of revenge. Likewise, he lies, steals, and cajoles himself back home. He may use big words, but he's far from civilized.

You beat me to the punch on that one. Quite so. Most of the characters in Vance's Cugel stories are barbarians. They're just barbarians who use words like "supererogatory" and "insensate".

In fact, if anything, the point of Vance's satire is that "civilized" men are merely fancy barbarians.

Also: "You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to jdrakeh again."

 

[Ariosto]

Keefe: That's Dragonlance, Desert of Desolation and Ravenloft. Do you disagree that Hickman introduced a new approach?

Now, there's an even newer one that has been alluded to earlier in this thread: not the DM as Author or Stage Director, but "narrative power" distributed among the players.

I prefer the latter. I have seen too strong a tendency for the former to degenerate into something that is not really a game.

Like many seminal inventions, D&D has moved way beyond the initial ideas and intentions of its creators, Gygax and Arneson.

Yep. That's THE POINT! I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against.

Some people like the new direction. Other people are not so enthusiastic. Is this news?

The OP's assertion that the change and conflict have roots in the fantasy fiction shaping different expectations in different demographics is not exactly novel either. This is an old, old issue. (Anyone remember the column on "Tolkien in Dungeons & Dragons"?)

 

[Lanefan]

Action points are a resource you expend to help your playing piece win, in terms of story control they are no different than a spell, potion or scroll.

A lot less powerful than those old scrolls of protection from X Gary used to place in his dungeons, when the BBEG was an X.

Assuming, of course, you found the scrolls before you found the X.

Lan-"X marks the spot"-efan

 

[LostSoul]

Regarding the OP:

Sounds like the difference between "Step on Up" (aka gamism) and "the Right to Dream" (aka simulationism).

Swords & Sorcery is identified as Step on Up and High Fantasy as The Right to Dream.

 

[Baron Opal]

I like Billy Gibbons and Yngwie Malmsteen, but Billy Holiday kinda bores me. But, it's all rock and roll to me.

 

[Betote]

I don't see any rules for story in 3e. The less killable 4e PCs do support story. When a protagonist dies unexpectably that's normally held to be unsatisfying.

You must really hate George R.R.Martin, then

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

1) Higher degree of player skill involved in survival.
2) Higher degree of luck involved in survival.
3) Save or die effects (a big one).

Player skill and luck are both important to a higher degree? That sounds mutually exclusive. Player Skill directly conflicts with things that are based mostly on luck. And Save or Die effects are the epitome "of luck vs player skill". Player Skill would be avoiding to enter a situation that relies on luck and instead guarantees a positive outcome.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A 4E campaign, OTOH, assumes a party of X-Men, far superior to the commoners, cleaving through hordes of foes and threatened only by the strongest of enemies. I cannot identify with such characters, and they seem more like playing pieces than protagonists I want to weave a story with.

A 1st level character cleaves through hordes of Kobolds and Goblins. A human guard is a 4th level "monster" that can beat an individual PC up quite easily, possibly in very humiliating ways.

Yep. That's THE POINT! I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against.

Some people like the new direction. Other people are not so enthusiastic. Is this news?

It's kinda the fundamental problem in these editions.

"It is not as it used to be!"
"Why should I care? I like it this way!"

"It is not as it used to be!"
"It's finally like I always wanted it!"

But sometimes it is:

"It is not as it used to be!"
"Funny, it's always as I used to do it!"

When we are talking about "player entitlement", it seems actually more about ... "fan entitlement".
Either side wants things like they like it. It really does not matter that one side wants it the "old school" way, and the other the "new school" way.

In the end, both sides (well, there are probably even more than two, but let'S pretend it are two) want something from their game, but these wants are mutually exclusive (if not that, would require a compromise that would make neither entirely happy).

Now that the "new school" players do have a game their way, the "old school" complains. But seriously, neither side has a specific "right" to have it their way. They only have the right to pick a game or an edition of a game that suits their preferences - if available.

While it might be nice to discuss the theories behind preferences and sensibilities and what-not, never mistake anything of this for a "moral" judgement. It is about personal taste and preference.

 

[Rechan]

While it might be nice to discuss the theories behind preferences and sensibilities and what-not, never mistake anything of this for a "moral" judgement. It is about personal taste and preference.

Silly chancellor. You should know by now that when it comes to personal taste and preference, there's only the speaker's way, and the wrong way.