Could Wizards ACTUALLY make MOST people happy with a new edition?

[Cergorach]

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]
That maybe true, but it is like going to a topnotch restaurant expecting being served some excellent dishes, instead you get to make the dishes with a little supervision from the cook. That might be cool (have done that before), but it isn't what you signed up for nor what you expected going in. 2E and 3E have both been games that greatly inspired before the game, 4E imho isn't. 2E and 3E have often hinged on games being good and fun by the grace of a great DM, maybe 4E has this problem less so, but there's a big problem when a lot of those 'great' DMs don't even get so far as actually run a game. Especially when they have an alternative that does meet their expectations (Pathfinder).

I've seen similar issues with Spycraft 1 vs 2, 1 was cool, exciting and challenging, 2 was like being hit over the head with a phonebook. A lot of folks are stressing functionality over form, that is great for actual tools, but not for entertainment.

 

[pemerton]

But at least for me, the entertainment is in playing the game, not in imagining it beforehand.

I don't want to be "served dishes" when I roleplay. That's what already authored fiction is for. (In my case, movies moreso than novels, which I don't read many of.) I want my roleplaying rules to be as good as possible for "making my own dishes" - ie for creating fiction in the course of play. It's not going to be great fiction, sure - but that's not the point (and in my personal opinion most fantasy RPG settings aren't great fiction either). The point is that it's created by me and my friends in playing the game.

That's what Vincent Baker is driving at (as I read him). That's what I think 4e is driving at, too (at least as I read it).

I think that PF is driving at something else. Hence, I think the gap is wide, and the prospects for closing it slim.

 

[TwoSix]

To me this is illustrative of a big difference between 3E and 4e, and the approaches to play that they are intended to support. It also reminds me of this comment from Vincent Baker:

Problem: the hobby, represented by the books in your game store and the conventional habits of most gamers, prefers the pre-game over the game.​

Unfortunately for 4e, many gamers still prefer the pre-game to the game itself. I know several players personally who adore this aspect of D&D. Pouring over magic item lists, looking through book after book for one particular spell, endlessly tweaking that perfect build.

That's why they can never forgive 4e, for taking that particular aspect of the game away. For them, that's the magic of D&D.

I don't particularly understand it, but since I've seen the behavior personally, I also can't dismiss it.

 

[BryonD]

I think that 4e's changes to the fiction of the game are, in many cases, closely connected to the mechanical changes. Worlds and Monsters discusses some of this, though not all (but it does make inferences to other aspects of what happened easier, I think).

One mechanical aspect of 4e that is very central is the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play (and the combat encounter as the paradigm encounter, although I think skill challenges are also an important part of the game). A lot of the mechanical changes are intended to support this.

But the changes to the story elements are also, in my view, intended to support this - nearly every story element of 4e is itself located within, and expresses some sort of position on, a conflict that players also buy into by building their PCs. There are a few exceptions (kruthiks and ankhegs as monsters; Avandra as a god; halflings as a race) but not that many.

And this helps encounter-centric play, because if nearly every story element speaks immediately to some conflict which the players are related to via their PCs, this makes each encounter matter, in play. Which supports the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play.

4E does a very solid job of doing the things it was designed to do and this is a good example.

It does THIS at the expense of doing the things *I* want. But that's cool because some people want exactly this.

 

[BryonD]

But at least for me, the entertainment is in playing the game, not in imagining it beforehand.

For me, I absolutely enjoy "world building" and "game prep" as a huge part of the fun. And since I actually sit at the table and play about once every two weeks, having a lot more chances to enjoy my hobby is a big value.

However, I do certainly agree that the "at the table" times are the focus, the most important and the greatest fun.

Which leads to...

I don't want to be "served dishes" when I roleplay. That's what already authored fiction is for. (In my case, movies moreso than novels, which I don't read many of.) I want my roleplaying rules to be as good as possible for "making my own dishes" - ie for creating fiction in the course of play. It's not going to be great fiction, sure - but that's not the point (and in my personal opinion most fantasy RPG settings aren't great fiction either). The point is that it's created by me and my friends in playing the game.

That's what Vincent Baker is driving at (as I read him). That's what I think 4e is driving at, too (at least as I read it).

Here I think you are presenting a lack of understanding of what fans like me want and experience.

The idea of "served dishes" is alien. And I say that with full understanding and acceptance that my settings and the world around the characters are preset in a much more solid form than yours. But the story is still about the characters and how THEY interact and change the setting. I've commented before about how one of the most awesome things about being a world building RPG DM is seeing players interact with and change it in ways I never would have thought of.

The ingredients are there. But all the players (including the DM) are creating the dishes from those ingredients.

I certainly find it interesting that you specifically contrast RPGs as being distinct from the experience of novels and movies since we recently had an exchange in which I specifically described how "feeling like I'm inside a novel" was the standard of measure.

But, just like reading a novel, I have no idea where the story is really going to go. We are inventing the details as we go along. We are serving all sorts of unexpected dishes.

And perhaps as DM I have a good idea of where the story is headed. Maybe you can compare that to reading a novel a second time. You still "feel like you are inside", but you have more knowledge. But, that isn't really right because the players are the focus and the energy and they can drive events in a wildly different direction. It is like you can play the same module 5 times with 5 different groups. And 3 or 4 times will probably look a lot alike, but the other times are wildly different. You don't know what is coming.

I don't know if I'll try to defend RPG settings. And I don't know if I would even claim that my awesome games would not be total DREK if actually written and marketed as fiction. But the experience at that time of playing feels like some of the best fiction ever, and being IN it and being a driving force OF it is what makes it "the best" or even better than most novels.

It is clear from your comments that you are not seeking that same result. And it is clear that 4E was not intended to focus on that same result. 4E is encounter driven and player controlled narrative driven so that the world is invented around them as they go. Nothing wrong with that but it is a very different thing.

I think that PF is driving at something else. Hence, I think the gap is wide, and the prospects for closing it slim.

Agreed very much there. It is like trying to add ice skates and throwing the ball through a hoop to baseball. They may all be great sports with huge fans, but trying to equate them is flawed and trying to blend them is absurd.

Asking which is therefore better is also silly.

Asking the title question of this thread, maybe one way or the other IS better at THAT.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One mechanical aspect of 4e that is very central is the idea of the encounter as the core unit of play (and the combat encounter as the paradigm encounter, although I think skill challenges are also an important part of the game). A lot of the mechanical changes are intended to support this.

I'm still a little bit baffled by this mentality. If I could boil my experience D&D (pre-4e) down to a "core unit", the encounter definitely wouldn't be it. Thus the difficulty of persuading someone like me to accept this new philosophy if they tried to carry it forward into a new edition.

Unfortunately for 4e, many gamers still prefer the pre-game to the game itself. I know several players personally who adore this aspect of D&D. Pouring over magic item lists, looking through book after book for one particular spell, endlessly tweaking that perfect build.

That's why they can never forgive 4e, for taking that particular aspect of the game away. For them, that's the magic of D&D.

I don't particularly understand it, but since I've seen the behavior personally, I also can't dismiss it.

But at least for me, the entertainment is in playing the game, not in imagining it beforehand.

I don't want to be "served dishes" when I roleplay. That's what already authored fiction is for. (In my case, movies moreso than novels, which I don't read many of.) I want my roleplaying rules to be as good as possible for "making my own dishes" - ie for creating fiction in the course of play. It's not going to be great fiction, sure - but that's not the point (and in my personal opinion most fantasy RPG settings aren't great fiction either). The point is that it's created by me and my friends in playing the game.

That's what Vincent Baker is driving at (as I read him). That's what I think 4e is driving at, too (at least as I read it).

I think that PF is driving at something else. Hence, I think the gap is wide, and the prospects for closing it slim.

This is also a bit baffling to me.

To me the defining aspect of 4e is the powers. Every character has to select several of them from a broad variety of sources, make a plan as to how and when to use them, and still has to select feats/skills/etc. I was under the impression that 4e maintained or increased player character creation time as compared to other versions of D&D. I understand that NPC and monster stats are no longer built off the same platform, so those are simpler, but when I look at a 4e fighter, I see a lot more work than when I look at a 3e fighter (even factoring in all the books you'd need to make a decent one).

Conversely, I haven't observed that the "perfect build" was particularly a part of 3e play outside of a select circle of people who are born rules lawyers. I'd say the ability to select classes by level makes it very easy to construct a build-and very easy to change your mind and play level by level (as opposed to selecting one path and being bound to it). I don't deny anyone's experiences to the contrary, but I don't understand them either.

Beyond all that, prep work for DMs has never really been about stats. You can either create your own story and characters, buy them (published adventures), or improvise them at the table. PF in particular has focused on adventures, which takes the prep out of the equation to some extent.

I'm not really seeing the focus on prep vs play as being a point of difference between any versions of D&D (and there are many differences). A version of D&D that didn't focus on poking through books to build powerful characters would be a new development indeed.

 

[amerigoV]

I think that 4e is designed more along the lines that Baker advocates, than is 3E. When 4e came out, I remember a lot of people saying that it plays better than it reads, as if this was something for which an apology was required.

I do demand an apology. I paid $30 for a book I get no pleasure in reading, even when I was playing it. Wow, was the PHB a bore. You may as well print out the reams of computer specs for how interesting it was (for me) to read. I was looking for a change and 4e could not close the deal (note it was not just the writing, but I got to admit I got the Savage Worlds book about the same time - one inspired me to keep picking it up....)

Presentation is important as that is how information is communicated effectively. I am in a very techincal field so its not like I do not deal with heavy 'crunch' - but taking something technical and making it boring is a sin that should be punished. And my punishment is to give my gaming $1 to them wild and crazy Savage World folks - they cram fun both into the pre-work AND the game itself. So they have managed to do both by my measure of your definition.

Maybe they got better, I do not know. I did pick up 4e Dark Sun and was not pleased at the 130 pages of crunch up front. I am sure it "plays better than it reads", but that fact has driven me off from picking up anything else.

 

[Echohawk]

I do demand an apology.

Demanding an apology because you bought a book that you weren't happy with seems rather... um... extreme. If you weren't happy with the purchase, I'd say you were entitled to return it and get a refund. But demanding an apology? That seems like an unrealistic expectation, sorry.

 

[amerigoV]

Demanding an apology because you bought a book that you weren't happy with seems rather... um... extreme. If you weren't happy with the purchase, I'd say you were entitled to return it and get a refund. But demanding an apology? That seems like an unrealistic expectation, sorry.

There is no point where Internet boards and realistic expectations intersect

I really do not want an apology. I am actually quite thankful in that I have a more expansive gaming experience now. But there is no excuse for a boring gaming book.

 

[Echohawk]

There is no point where Internet boards and realistic expectations intersect

So very true

I really do not want an apology. I am actually quite thankful in that I have a more expansive gaming experience now. But there is no excuse for a boring gaming book.

Good to see someone putting a positive spin on things. I'm afraid that I also found the PH to be an extremely dull read. My strategy for dealing with this has been to only DM 4e and not play it. The DMG was substantially less dull, and many of the subsequent 4e books were far more inspirational. In particular, Underdark provided me with a heap of ideas I've stolen for my campaign, even though the campaign hasn't yet ventured anywhere near the underdark.