Are Essentials more old school or just a clever marketing ploy?

[I'm A Banana]

I have to agree that I feel that 4e does engender a lot of laziness from the players.

I get a little irrationally annoyed whenever I see something like this.

As if it's some form of character flaw on behalf of the people who are sitting down to pretend to be an elf for a few hours on a weekend. As if they're not up to the tough requirements of playing make-believe dragon-slayers. As if somehow they lack the moral fortitude to invest more work into something that they do for leisure.

People will do what you give them incentives to do.

Part of game design 101 is making sure that the incentives line up with the things you want to encourage: you are rewarded for obeying the game's constraints.

If the game fails to engender people who willingly want to, say, engage in stunts outside of their rigid powers system, it is not a fault of some sort of sinful player slothfulness that they should be upbraided for.

It is the fault of a game that does not provide enough incentive to do so.

Ask anyone who's played Feng Shui if they've played using descriptive stunts, and you'll get a different response.

Now, this might be an intended result. A game with less DM Fiat and fewer judgement calls means that there's less wild variation between a Good DM and a Bad DM, that even someone totally new to the game won't screw it up too badly, because there's fewer moments for that DM to decide to do something that winds up hurting fun at the table. There's a lot to be said for a game that can run on rails (except when you want it to). Chess runs on rails the whole time, and people genuinely enjoy it.

But intended or not, it's not lazy players, it's based in the design of the thing. If people aren't doing what you want them to do, it's your job to make the game so that they will.

And you do that with psychology, but that's a topic for a different thread.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Part of game design 101 is making sure that the incentives line up with the things you want to encourage: you are rewarded for obeying the game's constraints.

If the game fails to engender people who willingly want to, say, engage in stunts outside of their rigid powers system, it is not a fault of some sort of sinful player slothfulness that they should be upbraided for.

It is the fault of a game that does not provide enough incentive to do so.

Ask anyone who's played Feng Shui if they've played using descriptive stunts, and you'll get a different response.

Now, this might be an intended result. A game with less DM Fiat and fewer judgement calls means that there's less wild variation between a Good DM and a Bad DM, that even someone totally new to the game won't screw it up too badly, because there's fewer moments for that DM to decide to do something that winds up hurting fun at the table. There's a lot to be said for a game that can run on rails (except when you want it to). Chess runs on rails the whole time, and people genuinely enjoy it.

But intended or not, it's not lazy players, it's based in the design of the thing. If people aren't doing what you want them to do, it's your job to make the game so that they will.

And you do that with psychology, but that's a topic for a different thread.

You know, I have played D&D since pretty much the start of the thing. I remember when you could be a fighter, a cleric, or a magic user and thief wasn't even invented yet.

Players have ALWAYS mostly stuck to the things that were built into the game. Especially when there wasn't a situation where they didn't have the tools on their character sheet to do what they needed to survive or get past an obstacle. Now, 4e certainly gives the players more built-in tools, so they don't have quite as much reason to improvise, but is that really the fault of the design of the game or is it more the result of the set-piece sort of adventure design that has prevailed?

Lets go back to 1e, as a pretty well developed system. Encounter design was moderately haphazard. Adventure design overall was pretty set-piece, but without as cut-and-dried a definition of encounter things tended to vary a lot more in practice. For one thing with a low level party having only small resources of hit points and a few spells everything was problematic by definition. It is no joke a house cat could kill a 1st level PC. ALL situations were desperate and hardly any encounter was balanced. If it WAS balanced then it was either balanced with the MU's Sleep spell in mind (Magic Missile, pfft) or not and the presence or absence of that one spell made all the difference between it was a slaughter or a cake walk.

In other words, if you want to see improvisation PUSH MORE. The canned 4e level+N encounter and then you get to rest thing is nice and reliable and it is fine in plenty of cases, but it is NOT the be-all and end-all of how the game should really run.

I think the only real 'problem' with 4e is that the people designing these games have gotten so polished at creating a game that works excellently well in a specific way that they simply never really thought about what happens when you keep playing it. Pretty soon you need to venture out of their little garden, but they didn't really put a lot of signs out there telling you that. I think they have played so much and written so many games that they've kind of forgotten.

The 4e DMGs have a lot of great ideas related to adventures and plots and story telling techniques, etc. What they really DON'T have is a lot about going outside the box with the basic bread-and-butter piece of the game, the encounter. Sure, they tell you a bunch about terrain and such things, but I think they needed to get more into what makes an encounter feel threatening and BE really interestingly challenging and what makes it tick as part of a larger whole.

Old D&D was organic because nobody really designed it and those kinds of things didn't come up in the same way. It is hard to actually put it in words, but the difference isn't that players have more powers to play with, it is that they're now hit with basically the same situation over and over again.

 

[Shemeska]

It won't be any more old school or any more than a often very different game from 1e/2e/3e D&D unless it starts bringing back a majority of the same sacred cows that it gleefully ground into chuck in the first place.

When they start putting a "bullet in the head" (to take a line from Mearls) of distinct 4e'isms, that's when it's more than a marketing ploy.

 

[Jack99]

It won't be any more old school or any more than a often very different game from 1e/2e/3e D&D unless it starts bringing back a majority of the same sacred cows that it gleefully ground into chuck in the first place.

When they start putting a "bullet in the head" (to take a line from Mearls) of distinct 4e'isms, that's when it's more than a marketing ploy.

I was wondering how long it would take one of you guys to show up.

You will find that my use of oldschool was used to juxtapose the E-line with Core to determine whether there was a significant change in feel. It might not match your oldschool idea of dnd, but it could still feel more like it than Core 4e.

 

[UHF]

I get a little irrationally annoyed whenever I see something like this.

Yeah... that was an irrational rant.

Did you even read my post? Can you please rant about the players using powers creatively? No wait... that would contradict everything you ranted about.

Why did you choose to dump on me? I mean... wow, that was a lot of stored up hate. (You owe me an apology.)


I've played for 30 years. I'm well aware of what games are like and how they play. And the rules affect how the game plays. I think that's a key reason why there are so many different rules. Some I liked and some I didn't because they affected the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why did you choose to dump on me? I mean... wow, that was a lot of stored up hate. (You owe me an apology.)

Easy there, Francis. It wasn't even directed at you. You weren't the only one referencing lazy players. I used what you said to address a few different comments. And it's sort of a tangential point anyway. I'm basically making the point that by and large the rules of the game have an effect on how you play the game, for good or ill. Which I don't think you disagree with.

When they start putting a "bullet in the head" (to take a line from Mearls) of distinct 4e'isms, that's when it's more than a marketing ploy.

I think they have started doing that with Essentials. They ain't totally done with it yet, but they've certainly begun. No martial dailies. Schools of wizardly magic. Paladins as LG champions. Utility powers that have a noncombat use. It's one option among many, but it's an option that 4e had completely disregarded in the past, so I think it's encouraging.

One of the things that Essentials seems to be doing is saying: "Look. We get it. There are people who used to play this game who liked how they played it and just wanted sort of a rules upgrade. Here's a bit for them."

It's a bit, but it's in the right direction.

 

[GreyLord]

Actually, to tell the truth, I think 3e was the version that inspired people the LEAST to improvise and had the LEAST improvisation according to the rules. There were rules for everything, or at least a lot more than the other versions. Want to try to trip someone...Oh...do you have the Tripping feat...guess you can't do that. Want to try to break his wooden staff...do you have Sunder...OH...I guess you can't do that either.

Want to try to cook up a rabbit at the campfire...OH...you're skill levels are only that high...you don't even know how to skin the rabbit much less cook it.

4e on the otherhand can be incredibly open. Skills are much more open in what they incorporate, and there are a LOT LESS of them. In fact with page 42 and subsequent ideas, 4e could be considered even more open in some ways than 2.5 with it's proficiency system.

Of course that requires an open minded and inventive DM...which without that...4e can be incredibly closed to inventiveness...but the same could be said of ANY SYSTEM without an inventive DM. What I'm saying is that overall, the rules are LESS constrictive in 4e than they were in 3e and 3.5 and to a degree even 2e (with proficiencies). Rituals open the arena up with the old create your own spell adage, while the lack of rules in some areas make it easier for DM's to make on the spot rulings.

I find that the LESS rules in regards to things normally are what inspire players to have more ingenuity and create more arenas for their imagination. You don't want something with NO rules...but something which has rules for everything tends to squash imagination much more than one which is "rules" light. That was the strength in regards to what some would call "Old School" gaming...and whilst 4e is no where close to what the original D&D was...I'd say with the exception of "Combat maneuvers" it is FAR more rules lite than 3.5 in every other aspect. For actual Roleplaying...it's a far more open system for a DM to play with along with the players then 3e or 3.5...

Of course some would say that their characters are not as defined because of that (the old...you write up your background and use your imaginiation doesn't quite gel with some) and that it's not as friendly to players because they cannot create specific characters with specific traits and shown as bonuses in their character as per the rules as they could in 3e...everything not spelled out would have to be written as background and NOT reflected per se...except via roleplaying by players themselves in 4e.

In the end however, even with the more restrictions on a DM...and more rules to define bonuses reflecting background for players in 3e...a DM can use the rule 0 and utilize a system to be as they want...and inspire players to be inventive and creative in ANY of the systems. Each has it's own strengths and weaknesses. 3e would be seen as more player friendly...more DM hostile in some ways...whereas older systems could be seen as more hostile to players but more friendly to DM's.

In that light I think 4e appealed to the OLD school gaming types MORE than 3e from the get go...all essentials does is to highlight that more by not providing as many specifics on combat maneuvers as the core rules giving an illusion of a more rules light system with players having to become more creative and roleplaying in their descriptions of what they do if they want variation...as opposed to the system providing that variation for them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

One thing that I've started to notice over the years is that some among the ranks of us older 'grognards' who have been playing the game since 80s or even 70s, have started to take exception to games not sucking sufficiently.

4e is a good, 21st century RPG. It makes life very easy on the DM, it gives the players some tools to define their characters, it delivers reasonably robust class balance, workable encounter balance, and it's pretty easy to keep it in that 'sweet spot' (that the game has really always had) where the game just plays well. Where it's just plain fun.

That drives some folks crazy. Where are the hundred-page personalized rule variants you used to need to make the game work just so (or just so it'd work)? Where are the arbitrarily lethal cursed items, the vague or overpowered (or both) spells, the incompatible and contradictory rules that only a clever DM can resolve on the fly? Why is everyone just sitting around the table having /fun/? Where's the sweat and the tears and the ruined friendships?

4e made life /very/ easy on the DM, and pretty easy on the players (no more trap and cursed-item paranoia, for instance). I spent years learning, through painful exprience, how to run an AD&D game that wouldn't end in multiple character deaths or turn into a "wierd wizard show" or a Monty Haul cakewalk. There were no CRs or ERs or even monster levels as guides. It was all experience and feel and intuition and more experience - it was a hard-won skill. I can understand how some folks feel slighted that just about anyone can run a fun game consisting of 3 encounters and a skill challenge, all by the numbers, and have it come off and be fun for all involved.

I'm not one of them - I'm delighted that gamers I've known for years who have only ever played are now willing to run, and /I/ get to play, now, too.

It's a good thing that RPGs have evolved over the decades, even if the kids playing with their bronze and iron games will never know the glow of accomplishment you get from chipping your game out of piece of honest flint...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Actually, to tell the truth, I think 3e was the version that inspired people the LEAST to improvise and had the LEAST improvisation according to the rules.

You think so? Maybe in your experience. But waves of third party products, stuff like True 20 and Spycraft and Mutants and Masterminds, and my own personal experience certainly point to not everyone having this problem.

Tripping and breaking things were examples of things that there WERE rules for, even if you didn't have some special class feature or feat (the rules didn't make it very attractive, usually, but they were there). The amount of "underpinning," to me, was liberating, because I felt like I could extrapolate easy from the baseline, generating adventures and action around the fact that there were rules for things. I could make it a climactic encounter to knock some Evil Baron off the peaks of his high roofed manor into the waiting mob below, confident that players would find a way to knock him off and that I would have rules to help adjudicate the stunts they tried to do. I had falling damage, I had trip rules, I had bull rush, I had item damage and disarming. I knew how to quickly figure out what happened if, say, the Barbarian crushed the roof below the Evil Baron with his massive maul (item hp and saves), or the Ranger wanted to try and shoot the coinpurse from his hands (called shots and size-affecting AC). They weren't always great rules (which influenced how often they were used) but they did exist, which gave me information on how to make thrilling combats.

4e's unified stunt system is fine as far as it goes, it covers the bases, but so much of your stunt is bound up in a damage expression and a DC, often making it less attractive than the use of one of your powers, so it doesn't see any more use than the trip rules. It also doesn't give you interesting options. It tells you, "If someone does something outside the box, use this." It doesn't provide much advice in the way of things you can do that are outside the box, that might be unique to your character.

This is mostly because 4e has a powers box for...everything. You're not supposed to trip, you're supposed to use a power that knocks someone prone. You're not supposed to knock someone off a roof, you're supposed to fight them util they are at 0 hp.

It's a Paradox of Choice thing, too. Given a list, people can choose, but given a single sentence that says "YOU CAN DO ANYTHING," and people do nothing.

where are the hundred-page personalized rule variants you used to need to make the game work just so (or just so it'd work)? Where are the arbitrarily lethal cursed items, the vague or overpowered (or both) spells, the incompatible and contradictory rules that only a clever DM can resolve on the fly? Why is everyone just sitting around the table having /fun/? Where's the sweat and the tears and the ruined friendships?

4e made life /very/ easy on the DM

It made life harder for me, because it assumed I was a certain type of DM, when I was not.

People have not-fun with 4e. People have fun with pre-4e. 4e has no monopoly on entertainment, or on people becoming DMs.

All this "everything sucked before 4e came along and everyone who doesn't like it is just wrong!" stuff is exhausting. Essentials is good step in a positive direction for a lot of people. If that makes you unhappy because those people shouldn't be welcomed into the game, you should perhaps open your mind to what the game can be, or at least who can play it.

 

[Scribble]

You think so? Maybe in your experience. But waves of third party products, stuff like True 20 and Spycraft and Mutants and Masterminds, and my own personal experience certainly point to not everyone having this problem.

Wait... What do 3rd party products have to do with improvisation?

In fact, it could be argued that the inability to easily improvise with the rule set lead to 3rd parties "doing the work" for you.

This is mostly because 4e has a powers box for...everything. You're not supposed to trip, you're supposed to use a power that knocks someone prone. You're not supposed to knock someone off a roof, you're supposed to fight them util they are at 0 hp.

Comments like this bother me, not in an angry sort of way, but in a... They always feel backwards to me, as if the game is in control of the player sort of way.

I think when they designed it, rather then look at what they "intend for you to do" they looked at what the majority of people DO, and built in options for them.

It's a Paradox of Choice thing, too. Given a list, people can choose, but given a single sentence that says "YOU CAN DO ANYTHING," and people do nothing.

Sure, I agree with this, but I don't think removing the list will really cause them to do more.

People fear the unknown. "Do anything" is an unknown.

Chances are they'll find whatever limited list they do have (oh it says I can swing a sword, so... I do that.) Or, they'll think up one or two things, and when they discover they work, will continue to do those same things over and over (essentially making their own list.)


I find these debates interesting though... They always remind me of that " The grass is always greener" saying.

Back in the day people got upset because there weren't rules for various actions.

So the game gives more rules, and now people get upset because the game has rules for doing things...



Personally I like a good mix. I like the game to have a good number of rules and powers, but to be open and flexible enough to improvise when you want to.


And as far as improvising... I think people get too hung up on the details. They want charts and equations factoring in different outcomes and damage amounts, and blah blah... When really a little extra damage here or there isn't going to send balance spiraling out of control.

But I'm kind of rambling now.