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

[MrMyth]

If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability? It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession. A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.

Well, anyone can activate a downed character's second wind, representing, as I see it, physically trying to get them on their feet and back in the fight. Outside of that... I'm sure there are skill and utility powers scattered across the place that would represent this. Outside of that... the Warlord is a natural born leader, the type that others follow into hell itself, and not everyone can lay claim to that sort of thing.

Sometimes the fallen will still find themselves able to get back in the fight (rolling a natural 20 on a death save and getting back up), and this can easily represent them finding something to inspire them back into the fight.

 

[Scribble]

Heh.

That's a problem with "Everything's core", isn't it?

You can't really have mechanics that are setting-specific while at the same time having every mechanic be core.

At some point, you have to choose which it is going to be.


RC

In my personal thoughts- mechanics don't need to be added to make a setting feel unique. The flavor of the setting should do that. Flavor is what drives ME to a particular world (can't speak for anyone else.)

I'm not sure I would even agree that any rules were added in the past to make the setting feel unique, as opposed to they had a cool idea, and it hadn't been thought of in the game as a whole yet, so it was added.

I feel that base mechanics should only be modified or added if there is a real NEED to do so (such as the core rules not having anything that can be used for whatever it is that is being done.)

If that rule addition is popular or really does modify the game in an overall positive way, then add it to the game as a whole. Don't squirrel it away in a setting specific book.

When 4e was created, the mechanics the old versions of the different campaign worlds added to the game were already a part of the game, so there was no longer a need to "add" them to that setting. All that needs doing is some re-skinning. Leave the base mechanic alone, just skin it to fit the flavor of your setting. (IE the base mechanics pf backgrounds should be part of the game as a whole, just re-skinned to be FR appropriate in FR.)

Dark Sun seems to be adding new mechanics because it has elements that just weren't thought of at the onset of the edition. If the new rules it adds to the game are fun- they should be added to the game as a whole (like a weird game creation mobius strip.)

Themes for instance... So far they seem really cool. I hope they are added to the game as a whole after the release of DS.

 

[Herschel]

Heh, so let me get this right, you are arguing that you can't compare one real but unquantified group with another real but unquantified group, and you are doing that by referencing a questionable and completely unquantified group?

No, what I'm saying is that certain people who admittedly have never read or played a system continuosly rant about how bad said system is ad nauseum and that it's an UNQUALIFIED troll instead of an actual, "informed" criticism, which the person I quoted has admitted.

 

[carmachu]

Indeed they do... and note how Wizards are now producing books which have a lot of material that isn't in the Compendium. Yes, the mechanics are - but the additional "fluff" isn't, and that's a significant part of their recent releases.

But considering that early books didnt have alot of fluff, I'm not sure thats going to be a good selling point to buy instead of a DDI subscription for the compendium. Heck I know a couple guys that split the yearly cost and use an account.....teh one could care less about the fluff, just the mechnics.

 

[WheresMyD20]

And Rolemaster - the move to RMSS in the early/mid-90s was not as big a change as that between AD&D and 3E. On the other hand, ICE is no longer an example of a flourishing RPG publisher.

My friends and I played a lot of RoleMaster. Back in the late 80s/early 90s RoleMaster was our system of choice. None of us liked the RMSS. ICE took an already complicated system and made it significantly more complicated. They made the mistake of thinking that just because fans liked RoleMaster's complexity that they would want even more complexity in a new version.

 

[Mallus]

If you fluff it that way, why is it that an ultra-charismatic non-warlord can't accomplish the same task using raw natural ability?

Why can't an AD&D wizard teach his buddy the fighter, who he's spent years looting and camping with, one single 1st level spell?

It's just so completely utterly arbitrary and gamist that only a warlord can do this. Inspiring people from death's door is NOT part of a profession.

See above. Also, of course it's gamist. D&D is a game.

A father or loved one can do it, a close friend and comrade-in-arms, charismatic priest invoking your faith in a god (without healing magic per se), etc.

This is covered in 4e. It would be a stunt (page 42).

Which is very problematic if you're truly roleplaying and immersed in your character and imagining what your PC is doing, and not "reverse engineering" what the rules say.

The funny thing is, people arrive at (and define) immersion quite differently. My group has no problem immersing themselves in their characters or the fictional world of our 4e campaign. The PC's are, if I do say so myself, with obvious bias, etc., brilliant and thoroughly entertaining. Including the warlord, who can verbally harangue the injured back to tip-top shape. I defy anyone to demonstrate why we aren't 'truly role-playing'.

(failed my will save against this one...).

 

[NoWayJose]

Well, anyone can activate a downed character's second wind, representing, as I see it, physically trying to get them on their feet and back in the fight. Outside of that... I'm sure there are skill and utility powers scattered across the place that would represent this. Outside of that... the Warlord is a natural born leader, the type that others follow into hell itself, and not everyone can lay claim to that sort of thing.

But that exactly supports my point. Any natural born leader can theoretically inspire someone from death's door. But not every natural born leader is a warlord. But in 4E only a warlord can inspire from death's door. It doesn't make any sense.

A father or loved one or whatever can inspire a son from death's door with the right words or emotion. But such a person doesn't necessarily have a skill or utility power. So tough luck for their 4E incarnation -- a warlord's career ability trumps a loving father's unskilled untrained pure raw natural inspiration.

Sometimes the fallen will still find themselves able to get back in the fight (rolling a natural 20 on a death save and getting back up), and this can easily represent them finding something to inspire them back into the fight.

That would represent the will of the PC, not the inspiration from a 3rd party.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my personal thoughts- mechanics don't need to be added to make a setting feel unique. The flavor of the setting should do that. Flavor is what drives ME to a particular world (can't speak for anyone else.)

Runecasting in a Norse setting, specific incredible physical feats in a Celtic setting, primitive argriculture and merely keeping a village alive in a Biblical setting, complex social standing within a Victorian setting, Honor in an Oriental setting, fear effects and social isolation within a Gothic horror setting -- these have all been done in various previous editions (in some cases by 3pp).

If the flavour determines the mechanics, then mechanics must exist to support the flavour. If the mechanics come first, then you can describe what the mechanics decide however you like.

The first supports role-playing (in that the choices of the players correspond to the actions of the characters), the second story-creation (in that a story is created, but not necessarily because the choices of the players pertain to the characters).

How did pemerton phrase it? Oh yes: "Using a power in 4e is clearly something that the player of the PC does, but it's always an open question whether or not it is something that the PC him/herself has done."

Both can be interesting types of games. Once Upon A Time is my personal fav story-creation game, though. I would rather play a role-playing game that is more focused on the player making choices that correspond to the actions of the character......to me, that is what role-playing is.

YMMV, and it is cool if it does.

But there is a difference in approach, and it leaves me cold.


RC

.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Comparatively, in 4e, I can't even roll for random magic items.

Uh oh! I've been rolling for random magic items. Please don't turn me into the WotC Police!

 

[carmachu]

I agree with (almost) all of this. The problem is that when you extend this reasoning, WotC's actions seem illogical.


Basically: What's the point of targeting teens with the goal of growing a long-term customer* pool, if you treat your long term customers in a manner which says: "only the new customers matter"?

It seems to me that working at keeping customers is just as important...

Their taking apage from Games Workshop- pump and dump, the new customer matters and will put more money in short term. The long term guys will eitehr be there or not so why bother to cater to them. If they stick around great, if not, they'll find some new guy.