What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

[Doug McCrae]

If one sees the D&D rules as describing a world in which the basic principles - gravity, the way the human body works and so forth - are the same as our own, then the fall-surviving barbarian would be regarded as inconsistent with that ie lacking in verisimilitude. There's the fantastical elements, magic and monsters, but where something is not fantastical, then it must act in a realistic manner.

By the rules, the high level barbarian is fantastical, yes, but by this view, the rules are not taken as axiomatic first principles. They can be wrong.

I actually find Hercules and the Hulk in a way more plausible than the barbarian. They have 'in story' justifications - half-divinity and gamma radiation - for what they can do. I have the same problem with stunts in action movies where the character performing the heroic feat isn't supposed to be superhuman like the Terminator or limited only by the power of his imagination as in the Matrix. Being a 'tough guy' doesn't cut it for me, it's not a strong enough justification.

Sure, one can come up with D&D world justifications for the barbarian, in much the same way as Gary tries to justify hit points - skill, luck, divine intervention. But that would mean that a Cure Light Wounds spell 'heals' all those things, as does a few days rest, which is weird. But this is an old argument. Hit points ain't got no verisimilitude.

a struggle to figure out what happened in the game world based on the mechanical outcome of the rule system.

This is exactly the problem with the barbarian, the rules don't fit the perceived reality of the game world. Making them fit is a struggle, just as it is with Come And Get It.

 

[FireLance]

I think come and get it has been picked on enough.

Please give us your nominations for the next most unrealistic power here.

(And warrior's urging doesn't count since it's pretty much just a higher-level version of come and get it.)

 

[DumbPaladin]

I agree most with two things I've seen said here, so I'm just paraphrasing:

1) WotC doesn't want players like me back, I don't think. They've shown nothing to suggest they do.

2) WotC would need to put out something that resembles D&D the way I recognize it from 2.0 through 3.5. The new game is just that: a new game. It's not one I'm interested in ... so maybe if 5.0 turns out to be less like 4.0 and more like something that came before ...?

I really can't think of any way they could get back the people they lost, but I highly doubt they care. They seem convinced they've found their new, better clientel base. I think they're wrong, but good luck.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That is so true. One of the worst things about 4E is how extremely gamist it is. It would be a much better game if they dialed down the gamism and put some more realism back in the game.

You miss what 4e is. It's Gamist/Dramatist. (I much prefer the Usenet classifications to the later Forge ones). And from most of the complaints, it's the dramatism as much as the gamism that's objected to.

I think come and get it has been picked on enough.

Please give us your nominations for the next most unrealistic power here.

(And warrior's urging doesn't count since it's pretty much just a higher-level version of come and get it.)

CAGI is an excellent dramatist power. The fighter glances round, smiles, gestures, and the enemies all rush as in a martial arts film. Rule of Cool. It's just not simulationist.

And I'll be interested to see what people come up with. Bastion of Defence, I expect (a martial power granting temp hit points).

 

[scruffygrognard]

After seeing yet another one of these threads do people honestly wonder why WotC PR no longer caters to this board? This is no longer really a DnD board in the 4e sense, it is very much a 3.5/pathfinder house by at least 50% or more according to polls...

I play all editions of the game and many others when a fun group is available. I just don't understand the "nerdrage" displayed on what was once a DnD friendly community.

Other than a few posters getting a little over-heated, I haven't seen a lot of rage in this thread... just insights into what drove people away from WotC and what could bring them back.

As someone who has played every version of D&D and AD&D that has been released over the past 30 years, I'm saddened by my utter lack of interest in the latest, official version of Dungeons & Dragons. To me, it looks like they made a deliberate point to move away from D&D's roots and classic elements in order to redefine the game for a new generation.

My hope is that they figure out that they've alienated a large portion of their long-term, loyal customers and attempt to woo us back. The fact that the pro-WotC sentiment on these boards has significantly eroded since 4th edition's release points to marketing and design errors on WotC's part rather than baseless "nerd rage" running rampant in these forums.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude. Obviously finding a large sum of gold, even getting it out of a dungeon, wouldn't make someone a better magic user, fighter or thief. That would logically be achieved by research, practice, practical experience in fights and so forth.

Gary justifies this in 1e, saying the former makes for a more interesting game, which is true, but it's also gamism because obtaining treasure is intended to be a big part of the challenge for the players in pre-2e D&D. Going up levels for finding it is just an incentive for the player.

In rpgs, experience points and the like are often a highly gamist, or metagame-y, mechanic as they are normally used to encourage player behaviour deemed desirable. Acquiring treasure, killing monsters, completing quests, roleplaying your character or whatever. Some games, such as the Chaosium family, do have simulationist skill increase, but D&D has never been sim in this respect. Or, indeed, many others.

It is a bit strange that Come And Get It, which is just one power, should be often cited for its troublesome lack of verisimilitude, when it hasn't been possessed by such fundamental parts of the game as experience points, hit points and classes. The faster healing in 4e - all hit points recovered by a six hour rest - would be a better example imo.

 

[bouncyhead]

Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude. Obviously finding a large sum of gold, even getting it out of a dungeon, wouldn't make someone a better magic user, fighter or thief. That would logically be achieved by research, practice, practical experience in fights and so forth.

Gary justifies this in 1e, saying the former makes for a more interesting game, which is true, but it's also gamism because obtaining treasure is intended to be a big part of the challenge for the players in pre-2e D&D. Going up levels for finding it is just an incentive for the player.

In rpgs, experience points and the like are often a highly gamist, or metagame-y, mechanic as they are normally used to encourage player behaviour deemed desirable. Acquiring treasure, killing monsters, completing quests, roleplaying your character or whatever. Some games, such as the Chaosium family, do have simulationist skill increase, but D&D has never been sim in this respect. Or, indeed, many others.

It is a bit strange that Come And Get It, which is just one power, should be often cited for its troublesome lack of verisimilitude, when it hasn't been possessed by such fundamental parts of the game as experience points, hit points and classes. The faster healing in 4e - all hit points recovered by a six hour rest - would be a better example imo.

I agree that CAGI has probably been kicked around the room enough but as briefly as I can: The issue for some people with CAGI is intent and free will. Abstractions are a necessary part of gaming in an imagined world and we all accept them. But an abstraction that commandeers the free will of an in-game entity (pc, npc, whatever) is a problem for some. The best way I can express it is by flipping the viewpoint round: I'm running an adventure for my party of feckless goons. They encounter an npc fighter with CAGI. At a certain point you get a conversation that goes something like:

Me: Dan, Jorvek runs over here to attack this guy.
Dan: He does? But he doesn't want to attack that guy.
Me: Actually he does. He decides he wants to attack him.
Dan: I thought I decided what he wanted to do.
Me: Not in this instance.

Jorvek's free will has not been subverted or dominated. He is not the subject of an enchantment. He has in fact freely decided to attack the CAGI fighter. It's the switch in narrative control that bothers some people. It's not the scale of the abstraction, it's the nature of the abstraction.

BTW, what an informative, calm and interesting discussion about traditionally fraught, flammable subject matter.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Experience points in OD&D and 1e, which are gained largely by finding gold, are another rule where gamism trumps verisimilitude. Obviously finding a large sum of gold, even getting it out of a dungeon, wouldn't make someone a better magic user, fighter or thief. That would logically be achieved by research, practice, practical experience in fights and so forth.

And having more money helps fund your research, helps hire better teachers, better sparring partners, etc. Any college student can tell you having your way paid through med school makes it a much easier journey than working your way through school by taking on 3 jobs after classes. Not that it can't be done, but a crapload of gold would make it much easier. That's shown in game by more exp.

 

[Imaro]

You miss what 4e is. It's Gamist/Dramatist. (I much prefer the Usenet classifications to the later Forge ones). And from most of the complaints, it's the dramatism as much as the gamism that's objected to.



CAGI is an excellent dramatist power. The fighter glances round, smiles, gestures, and the enemies all rush as in a martial arts film. Rule of Cool. It's just not simulationist.

I think there's more objection to the way 4e mixes gamism with dramatism, as opposed to just objecting to dramatism itself. See even with your example above, in 90-95% of most action movies the major villain will not rush in like some stupid mook. You expect the mooks to just rush in, but CaGI affects anyone equally... since there is no way to resist it. That isn't good dramatism IMO, it's sloppy because gamisim is still king.

 

[RangerWickett]

When 4e first came out, my complaints were:

* I thought the art wasn't as evocative as in 3e.

* Ditto the fluff writing. There wasn't much flavor.

* Combat took too long, both because of hit point grind and because people had to keep passing the book around to remember what their powers did.

* The power design actually discouraged creativity, because players were pulled toward using their listed abilities rather than doing something situationally more interesting.

* Trying to break out of classes through multiclassing was punitive.

* Magic items are boring.

* Rogues had dumb weapon restrictions.


Today, the art is much better, the fluff in Underdark and Demonomicon looks great, combat goes faster thanks to the character builder, and I've instituted the house rule that all PCs get an at will called "do something cool." Hybrids still aren't quite where I'd like them to be, magic items are still boring, and rogues still have dumb weapon restrictions, but I've figured out how to fix all those with house rules.

So now, all in all, I rather like the game.

Oh, and I think I've come up with a 4e-compatible wound system that I like. I posted it here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...9-warhammer-esque-wounds-d-d-4th-edition.html