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

[BryonD]

I guess even though 3.X didn't fix the magic system, at least they made it overpowered enough to make the power gaming crowd happy.

The big flaw with this claim is: the vast majority of people who insist that wizards were all about power gaming in 3E are 4e fans.

My 3E/PF games continue to rock along with fighters and wizards shoulder to shoulder.

 

[SSquirrel]

I really don't know how you would "adhere" to GNS, but part of the main thrust of it is that none of the agendas are "badwrongfun", I don't see where this comment is coming from. What, in your view, is GNS saying is the "correct" method/mode of play?

GNS doesn't say it, you implied it in your comments, but you have since said we misunderstood what you said, so whatever. Saying things like "What actually motivates your despite of GNS? Do you just dislike understanding what you are doing? Do you just regard understanding of what you do as a waste of time" certainly don't help your cause as they make it sound like you are saying NOT using GNS theory to understand gaming means you won't understand it and they you're doing it wrong.

I really don't have an overwhelming need to fulfill your curiosity. Just leave it at the idea that threads devolving from original topics into endless debates about what GNS approach is being used solves NOTHING and turns what could have been a useful discussion into self-important bickering. IMO of course as always

 

[P1NBACK]

I have necer experienced 4E played in that mode. I can quite believe that there are some people who do play it that way, but I'm not at all convinced that either of us know whether or not they constitute 'most' of the players of 4E.

I do, however, think that, compared to other systems I have played, D&D is quite poor at supporting Simulationist play. The reasons why I explained above, but basically are around experience points, 'levelling up' and hit points. And not because they are "unrealistic".

I admit my evidence is largely anecdotal and from reading 4E DMs online. But, I think a large majority of players play 4E that way.

You cite experience points as being poor at simulationist play. How so? In early D&D, experiences were a measure of progress, a scorecard if you will. They were handled as individual rewards and each type of character had a certain amount they needed to reach the next level. That's pure gamism.

However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it".

That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do.

Now, no doubt you can play 4E in a gamist way. I ran two long-running 4E campaigns. One of them was the former, they leveled up every other session as a pacing mechanic. The other was a sandbox game, where they earned XP for doing specific tasks, and earned it individually (we had a player base of 11-15 rotating players). One was high on simulating action heroes saving the world. The other campaign was straight up competition at the highest level.

Guess what? They both had XP, levels and hit points.

Has nothing to do with that.

GNS is about instances of play.

Like I said, it may be largely my observation, but I feel like more people do the "set piece encounters", linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a "campaign pacing" mechanic.

 

[MichaelSomething]

The big flaw with this claim is: the vast majority of people who insist that wizards were all about power gaming in 3E are 4e fans.

My 3E/PF games continue to rock along with fighters and wizards shoulder to shoulder.

There are many factors that affect this.

Do you play high level? The higher level you play at, the more likely it is that power gaps happen.
What about your players? Are they system analysts? Do they play the way the 3.X playtesters did? Are they nice enough to not overshadow the weaker players? Do they know what CoDzilla is?
What about you? Can you handle a high level game? Can you design situations where everyone is useful? Do you know where the system falters and avoid the pit holes? Do you know what to do when a power gap happens?

You may not have had those problems, but there are plenty of people who do! Are they all playing the game wrong? Is D&D not for them?

It would help me figure out your table's dynamic if you posted your player's character sheets, but that would take too much work on your part so I'll follow the golden rule on that (aka not asking you to do that because I wouldn't do it either if someone asked me).

 

[TwoSix]

The big flaw with this claim is: the vast majority of people who insist that wizards were all about power gaming in 3E are 4e fans.

My 3E/PF games continue to rock along with fighters and wizards shoulder to shoulder.

Well, that seems like a bit of self-selection there. If I thought that 3E wizards were a huge problem, naturally I'd be more likely to move onto another system.

Powergaming certainly isn't specific to any one system. Powergamers in 4e know they can build characters that can end a fight in 2 rounds. Powergamers in 3e know they can end a fight before it even starts. It's merely a preference.

 

[Balesir]

I admit my evidence is largely anecdotal and from reading 4E DMs online. But, I think a large majority of players play 4E that way.

Purely anecdotally, I think DMs who post online may have a jonesing for Sim play to an extent. What their actual sessions consist of, though, I have no idea - and the agenda will be mostly set by the players, I would guess. But, basically, I have no more real evidence than you, so I guess we'll just have to settle for not knowing.

However, what we see a lot nowadays is people not using experience points like that. Instead they use it as "campaign pacing" mechanic; they only hand out XP in a hand wave fashion so that it levels up the characters "after so many sessions" or "when it feels right" or "when the story requires it".

I have seen this quoted, sure - but that's not playing the rules as written, it's 'drifting', as I imagine you are aware. Drifting, far from demonstrating a system's ability to support a play agenda, really demonstrates that it fails, as written, to support that agenda (which is why it "had to be changed").

That is NOT gamism. That's simulationism at its best. It "feels like the heroes should get stronger, to fight these stronger enemies" so they do.

I don't think we can say it's necessarily Simulationist - it could as easily be Narrativist (and I think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s posts around here demonstrate this). But, yeah, 4E can be drifted to support non-Gamist agendas; no great surprise.

GNS is about instances of play.

Agreed. As such, systems and campaigns are not tied to a specific agenda - but they do tend to prioritise and support one specific agenda, as written/intended.

Like I said, it may be largely my observation, but I feel like more people do the "set piece encounters", linear storylines from one to the other, and trash traditional experience accumulation for more of a "campaign pacing" mechanic.

Almost as an aside, I think "linear storylines" can fit with Gamist play just fine. The "story" in this case just becomes a convenient context linking all the challenges together. The only agenda that really doesn't suit "linear stories" is Narrativism - but some varieties of Simulationism have issues with them, too. Not that linear stories are essential to Gamist play, mind you - the links and routes between "encounters" can be a game in itself.

 

[gamerprinter]

Random thoughts:

The discussion of the demo game reminds me of all the demo games I've been in over the years that have had good roleplaying...
......
......
......
...OK, you've got me. Over the last 30 years I've never seen a demo or in-store game that's had much, if any roleplaying. In store games can make Nobilis and Everway look like tactical games. Despite common opinion, I don't see demos of any sort really giving any real hint of the roleplaying potential of a game. Yes, that includes the local darling Pathfinder. I've never seen more roleplaying coming out of that game.

I've just released 3 adventures as a mini-arc set in my Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting for Pathfinder. The start of both the first and second adventures are heavily involved with roleplaying encounters. While there is some combat at the start of the first adventure, much of the encounters in the first half of the first adventure involves roleplaying with mechanics built in to enhance the roleplaying. If you don't motivate the right people with the party's roleplaying skills many delays will prevent them from continuing the adventure.

The start of the second adventure involves 3 different roleplaying encounters involving buying horses from xenophobic merchants, distributing gifts (intended as part of a larger spell being cast) and a diplomatic encounter with the local lord.

These roleplaying encounters are built into the adventure itself - without the necessary roleplaying the storyline can't move forward.

Thus the argument that PF doesn't support roleplaying is simply a choice of your gaming group to do or not do, not a discrepancy in the game system, as my point is roleplaying is easily supported by PF.

 

[BryonD]

There are many factors that affect this.

Do you play high level? The higher level you play at, the more likely it is that power gaps happen.
What about your players? Are they system analysts? Do they play the way the 3.X playtesters did? Are they nice enough to not overshadow the weaker players? Do they know what CoDzilla is?

I dispute the claim of "weaker" players. The presumption there, imo, shows the problem. Now, I DO play with people who like to be part of a cool story about cool characters rather than trying to "beat" the game regardless of of how disjointed their buold may be.

You may not have had those problems, but there are plenty of people who do! Are they all playing the game wrong? Is D&D not for them?

Oh, I absolutely admit that people have this problem. It would be silly to argue otherwise. But it is not a symetric issue. If it was a systemic problem it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.

There are people who also can't hit a curve ball. I'm one of them. No one can it a curve ball with a broken bat. But blaming may inability to hit a curve ball on the batt is just making excuses.

The D&D I play is made for maximum adaptability. I won't call anyone's play "wrong", and if you pay attention to my posts you will know I have stressed that idea numerous times.

However, there are a ton of people who play the game "wrong" if you add the presumption that trying to achieve the experience *I* desire. 3E can absolutely be abused, the system is not burdened with safety rails that limit options in exchange for reliability.

If CODzilla is a real problem in your game, then you are not playing a game best suited to your play style. But your play style is vastly different than mine.

But in my games, through a wide range of levels, players agreeing to work toward awesome STORIES have a great experience.

If CODzilla is fun to you and is your goal, awesome. My preferences are different, but they have zero claim of superiority to that. However, if someone were to claim they are focused on the story AND that CODzilla is a problem, then I WILL question to consistency of those claims.

There is no badwrongfun goal. But 3E can be palyed toward different goals, and if you want one and play toward another then THAT is probably "wrong".

 

[technoextreme]

I dispute the claim of "weaker" players. The presumption there, imo, shows the problem. Now, I DO play with people who like to be part of a cool story about cool characters rather than trying to "beat" the game regardless of of how disjointed their buold may be.

I don't think it has to do with the build though. The major criticism of 3.5E is that certain classes are capable of doing everything. And yes you can force it to be a fun experience but then you are basically admitting that you have to kludge the system to make it work. And before you use the ad hominem of it being a 4E fan please realize that I'm actually reading this off of the house rules of multiple 3.5E forums.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

If it was a systemic problem it would be impossible for me NOT to have the problem.

Maybe there's another word than 'systemic' to describe the problem then.

My case in particular: My group likes supplements. We do not wish to limit new classes or feats, etc. We love splatbooks! No one in the group agrees with or maybe they just don't know how to build a CoDzilla or the overpowerd Wizard of board lore. Some of our players are great at scouring through splatbooks to create power builds. Others are not. The preceding statements are relatively non-edition specific.

3e with the multitude of splats (which remember we love) caused a power gap that made running the game unenjoyable for any member of our group. When looking for the underlying cause, it was the ability to cherry pick in multiclassing that was the driving force behind our problem. Some people fix this issue by limiting splats, but that wasn't an acceptable solution for us. So it would have required a change to a very core concept of the game, the multiclassing rules. Many adjustments were proposed, but all seemed at a minimum to be arbitrary.

With the flaw being "Multiclassing" I consider this to be a systemic problem for us.

I guess you could limit systemic problems to those commonly encountered by every single player, but then I doubt that term would be useful as you could probably never find complete agreement on any particular problem.