The Truth About 4th Edition.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Other interesting tidbits:

AM: Why not toss some of those classic products back into print, or do an on-demand? It strikes a lot of us as kind of odd that people are paying for Labyrinth Lord and Swords & Wizards when with one swoop you could capture that money just by selling D&D Mentzer.
LS: You know, I think that things like print-on-demand are really coming into their own and it's certainly something that we're exploring and looking at. We don't have any specific plans that we're announcing yet, but it's certainly something that we're looking at.
AC: We're not unaware. We do move slowly at times, but I like to think that the end result is that we're happier with the decisions we make.

That sounds interesting to the OSR fans, doesn't it? Of course, print-on-demand is typically more expensive than buying normal print products, but it is certainly an interesting approach. Ah, well, it seems still to be far off...

 

[ProfessorCirno]

For the record, WoW wasn't a 3.5 setting, it was a d20 game. MM was a d20 game, but that doesn't mean 3.5 is about golden age caped crusaders

 

[Windjammer]

3. Current as much as prospective D&D players typified as sociopaths who see nothing to be gained from the game when it isn't their turn? Check.

What on earth in that interview implies anyone is a sociopath?

A gamer who only enjoys and spends attention on the game when it's his own turn is a sociopath in my book. (Not a sociopath with respect to things outside the game, but I think you'll grant that the relativization is in place.)

To quote myself from 18 months ago,

Remember this was one of the guys who said, "roleplaying is twenty minutes of fun packed into four hours." I guess it is when he's GMing... oblivious to all player boredom and frustration...

I think that quote is one of the more frequently misunderstood ones. It comes from Ryan Dancey. What it boils down to isn't so much that extant incarnations of D&D up to 3E had it all wrong with fun placement at the table (i.e. 20 minutes fun gaming, 3 hours 40 minutes chore). It's rather that, on a very, very tight definition of what 'playing the game' means, players spend 20 minutes total per session on or with actual game mechanical elements (say, roll a dice, select a spell, move your mini). The remainder of their time are dedicated to having a good time around that core - chatting about non-game related stuff, discussing what to do next, making fun of a picture or description used by the DM - 90% of this is out of character. I am hesitant to say that's how it is for all groups, but it certainly holds true of mine, and is the primary reason why I enjoy D&D so much: I enjoy the company of my friends, the company being loosely centered on "the game".

The mistake of 4th edition designers, in my view, was to take Dancey's observation the wrong way. Instead of endorsing the aforementioned set up like every previous edition did, and recognizing that people ARE enjoying themselves that way a great deal - which means, endorsing the fact that, at the core, an RPG means you and your friends getting together, round a table to engage in friendly chatter - 4th edition tried to expand the 20 minutes spend on "the game" narrowly conceived and pushed it into the 4 hours. Mearls rejoycing at people at D&D Experience who say "Oh, it's my turn again already? This is great!", as if every time it is not your turn it's down time for you; trying to move the fast paced combat mechanics (sc. amount of turns per combat = high, length of turn = low) into non-combat game elements (-->skill challenges) and so on. Ironically, I would even include the new emphasis on teamwork, because it means that you cannot enjoy someone else's turn unless you are directly (in-game, mechanically) involved. 4th edition doesn't encourage teamwork per se to a greater extent than previous editions did (I mean, D&D hitherto not a collective experience? come on!). Rather, 4E rather re-defines the time and place at which teamwork ought to take place. It pushes it into the aforementioned 20 minutes.

That's, at least, my understanding of some of the design principles behind the new edition. I'm not saying that there is a 1:1 impact on your experience at the game table, in fact, my own experience with 4E has been the opposite. But that's because I game with people who didn't pick up roleplaying from 4th edition, and the very mentality we bring to the table contravenes the one the ruleset pushes really hard towards ("don't kill my loot!!!").

A closely related point is the elimination of player elimination in Eurogames. "Save or suck" was removed from 4E because it potentially removed a player from playing his PC for 1-2 hours. (I say potentially because in older editions char-gen was quick enough to not cause a mid-session time stopper if a new PC had to be rolled up. Not so for 4E, though I wager a PC running on DDI and a colour printer could be as effective.)

Elimination of player elimination too is premised on the idea that a player can only have fun at the time he's actively engaging with the game's mechanics (his own PC).

For me, to be social as a gamer means that I don't hinge the enjoyment of a game solely on my own performance but on everyone's. If that means not taking a turn myself, or not even taking several turns, who cares?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

A gamer who only enjoys and spends attention on the game when it's his own turn is a sociopath in my book. (Not a sociopath with respect to things outside the game, but I think you'll grant that the relativization is in place.)

To quote myself from 18 months ago,



A closely related point is the elimination of player elimination in Eurogames. "Save or suck" was removed from 4E because it potentially removed a player from playing his PC for 1-2 hours. (I say potentially because in older editions char-gen was quick enough to not cause a mid-session time stopper if a new PC had to be rolled up. Not so for 4E, though I wager a PC running on DDI and a colour printer could be as effective.)

Elimination of player elimination too is premised on the idea that a player can only have fun at the time he's actively engaging with the game's mechanics (his own PC).

For me, to be social as a gamer means that I don't hinge the enjoyment of a game solely on my own performance but on everyone's. If that means not taking a turn myself, or not even taking several turns, who cares?

Elimination of player elimination too is premised on the idea that a player can only have fun at the time he's actively engaging with the game's mechanics (his own PC).

Not no fun vs fun. Fun vs more fun.
1) It is great fun to see a friend succeed at awesome in game feats due to luck, ingeniuty or general badassititude. They can't do that when they are dead or stunned or petrified or something like that.
2) It is great fun to congratulate each other for our respective ingeniuty, luck or general badassititude. This can't happen if some of us aren't able to show off their ingeniuty, luck or general badassitutde.

It might be a sign that I am a social gamer that I can enjoy other people kicking ass and taking names. But it is also a sign that I am social gamer that I can feel with someone that is not allowed to kick ass and take names.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A gamer who only enjoys and spends attention on the game when it's his own turn is a sociopath in my book. (Not a sociopath with respect to things outside the game, but I think you'll grant that the relativization is in place.)

But that isn't what the word means. Don't use a word that highly charged if that's not what it means.

:|

 

[Windjammer]

But that isn't what the word means. Don't use a word that highly charged if that's not what it means.

Would you agree to this statement:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Sans Serif]Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme."

[/FONT]Would you agree that a noun like 'sociopath' permits relativizations to contexts, e.g. 'He really behaves like a sociopath around the elderly'?

If so (and I'd be curious if not) I really can't see any fault of taking that noun's core meaning and applying it to the context of game(r)s.

I'm happy for people to disagree that Eurogames' attempts to eliminate player elimination and to keep uneliminated players occupied with the game mechanics outside their own turn were driven by the design goals I allege (sc. cater to gamers who don't find a game enjoyable outside their own turn). But that's an agreement with an actual argument (or attempt thereof), and not jumping on semantics.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But that isn't what the word means. Don't use a word that highly charged if that's not what it means.

:|

I don't know, sounds like a perfectly videogamey thing to do.

 

[ruemere]

(applies also to JohnSnow)

This is the sort of remark I don't understand.

It's widely agreed that 4e, unlike 3E, does not support simulationist play well, and requires the GM and players to cooperate in shaping a narrative that makes sense (in gameworld terms) of the outcomes that the mechanics (skill challenges, Come and Get It, marking, healing surges etc) are delivering.

This sort of RPGing may not be to everyone's taste. But I don't see how it can be described as "less refined". Indeed, the sort of games that this resembles (HeroQuest, The Dying Earth or (to take a more extreme example) My Life With Master) would normally be regarded as avant-garde rather than simplistic.

If a tool is intended to be used by less skilled people, it can be also used by specialists. You (and JohnSnow) should not feel slighted - you have not been referred to, I have merely addressed certain quality of a product, a quality implemented intentionally by designers.

My intention is also to emphasize that WotC products seem to cater to this particular quality to the degree that people who like to play 4E feel uncomfortable.

Still, the game is what you make of it, and that's why there is no need to act so defensively. As I have written, I consider 4E to be a very elegant system, and were it not for certain aspects of the way the product is being handled, I would be probably using 4E.

Regads,
Ruemere

 

[Coldwyn]

Would you agree to this statement:

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Verdana, Sans Serif]Sociopaths only care about fulfilling their own needs and desires - selfishness and egocentricity to the extreme."

[/FONT]Would you agree that a noun like 'sociopath' permits relativizations to contexts, e.g. 'He really behaves like a sociopath around the elderly'?

If so (and I'd be curious if not) I really can't see any fault of taking that noun's core meaning and applying it to the context of game(r)s.

I'm happy for people to disagree that Eurogames' attempts to eliminate player elimination and to keep uneliminated players occupied with the game mechanics outside their own turn were driven by the design goals I allege (sc. cater to gamers who don't find a game enjoyable outside their own turn). But that's an agreement with an actual argument (or attempt thereof), and not jumping on semantics.

You´re still using it totally out of context. Sociopathy used to be classified as a serious mental disorder, now it´s regarded as a neuropathologic disorder.

So whatever you´re trying to say, it doesn´t have anything to do with that word.

 

[avin]

I very much doubt that. Despite having 100's days /played in MMO's, I for one have no wish for a WoW-setting. And I doubt I am alone.

I have more time than you just playing my main (I got three 80's), but I also don't want a 4E Wow setting.

It's a great game, but I'm not a big fan of Wow's lore clichés...

Why would a Wow player want to leave his PC for playing with dices?