Should D&D (or any other RPG) actually attempt to be "All Things to All People"?

[pemerton]

Dungeons and Dragons: Skirmish/Dungeon Crawl - this would be basically what we see as 4th Edition, because lets face it, when it comes to combat, 4E handles this very very well.

Do we have to have this every time 4e comes onto the radar in the General forum?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't know SW other than by reputation. But the other "multi-genre" games - HERO, GURPS, BRP, Role/Spacemaster - still tend to support only one playstyle, namely, exploration-heavy, system-heavy play. I know from experience that RM can be drifted in other directions. The features that facilitate that are absent from BRP, though, and I think somewhat absent from HERO as well (I don't know it so well, and GURPS less well again).

With each edition of Hero, what you say became more true. Well, technically it hasn't really changed much between 4th and 6th, because that aspect was already fairly maxed out by 4th. If anything, it became slightly more neutral in 5th and stayed that way in 6th, because of the focus more on the technical framework than the fluff.

However, 3rd edition and earlier Champions was very easy to drift in ways that might be surprising. For that matter, 1st edition Fantasy Hero (before unification of the system) was also. The combination of a generic and effects-based, with some odd-ball character flavorings thrown in, tended to downplay the exploration-heavy play. And Hero has always been much heavier on the front-end than in play--character generation and campaign framework. If the GM and/or one or two players handle that aspect, and you set up the campaign framework to not be too involved, for the other players, Hero can be very light. Drift Hero's disadvantages into explicitly character-defining mechanics, and you've got something very far from simulation.

I believe that some of the early GNS narrativism play was done with early Champions. It's easy to drift into exploring themes instead of exploring the world or the characters. Once you do that, you are within shouting distance of GNS narrativisim.

 

[mmadsen]

But the other "multi-genre" games -- HERO, GURPS, BRP, Role/Spacemaster -- still tend to support only one playstyle, namely, exploration-heavy, system-heavy play.

I agree that most of the generic systems emphasize the system, and many of them, as an explicit move away from D&D, make combat grim and gritty, but a generic system doesn't have to be heavy, and it certainly doesn't have to be grim and gritty. I do think it has to remain vaguely tethered to reality, but it can drift off in the same ways the most action stories do -- with not-at-all grim combat, for instance.

On the other hand, compare 3e or 4e to GURPS or FATE or Pendragon, and you'll see differences in the play style that are much larger than those between any two editions of D&D. Which I think is part of the reason why the "All things to all men" RPG isn't possible.

The difference in play style doesn't come simply from the game mechanics though. When you decide to play Pendragon, you decide to play as knights in Arthur's semi-mythical England. D&D might fail you in any number of ways -- no one's shield is ever brast asunder, no one's ever unhorsed, etc. -- but plenty of people tried campaigns that weren't JRR Tolkien meets RE Howard back in the old days.

 

[MichaelSomething]

But in many cases, those players don't really feel they need more specific options. The mechanics are useful for some degree of resolution, but the real focus of the game is more on the role-play dimensions that don't need much in the way of mechanized resolution.

And that's perfectly valid.

Then why do people think you can't roleplay in 4E then?

Dungeons and Dragons: Skirmish/Dungeon Crawl - this would be basically what we see as 4th Edition, because lets face it, when it comes to combat, 4E handles this very very well. It would be the product for miniatures and table top battles. This would be the game demoed and introduced at local stores, just like Encounters, for getting new players familiar with D&D on the most basic level.

 

[Pilgrim]

Do we have to have this every time 4e comes onto the radar in the General forum?

No. Just like we don't need one poster taking another poster's comment out of context and inferring malcontent, when such was never intended.

By the same token, it would appear you disagree with the statement. Are you saying that combat in 4th Edition isn't good? Because from where I sit, I think it's one of the best designed systems for running combat to date.

 

[tehuber]

Think about it this way:

You can be McDonalds and appeal to a huge mass audience with a consistent and widely available, if somewhat mediocre, offering.

Conversely you can be a Ruth's Chris Steak House (or insert whatever high end restaurant floats your boat) and offer a better experience to a smaller clientele at a premium price.

Guess which ones makes more money at the end of the day.

 

[billd91]

Then why do people think you can't roleplay in 4E then?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that these are probably different people. "People" think all sorts of different things, often contradictory, because not all references to "people" mean the same "people".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

No. Just like we don't need one poster taking another poster's comment out of context and inferring malcontent, when such was never intended.

Damning with faint praise is still damning with faint praise, whether intended maliciously or not. In context, it is exactly the kind of distinction that used to annoy Basic D&D players when the AD&D players got a little careless with how they said things (deliberately or not). "Oh, I'm sure Basic is great. If I wanted to show my pre-teens how to play, you can't beat it..." Then goes on to talk about how all the sophisticated cats are doing the advanced stuff.

It's true that Basic is a wonderful game for introducing kids to D&D. Implying that is all it is, is the problem.

 

[ahayford]

Damning with faint praise is still damning with faint praise, whether intended maliciously or not. In context, it is exactly the kind of distinction that used to annoy Basic D&D players when the AD&D players got a little careless with how they said things (deliberately or not). "Oh, I'm sure Basic is great. If I wanted to show my pre-teens how to play, you can't beat it..." Then goes on to talk about how all the sophisticated cats are doing the advanced stuff.

It's true that Basic is a wonderful game for introducing kids to D&D. Implying that is all it is, is the problem.

I think if you go back and read that guys post, no where does he add the "f I wanted to show my pre-teens how to play" part. I think, perhaps you are inferring it where there was nothing to infer.

 

[mmadsen]

Then why do people think you can't roleplay in 4E then?

I don't know who these people are who think you can't roleplay in 4E -- "I don't have a talk to innkeeper at-will!" -- but there are plenty of people who see well-defined powers unconnected to the "reality" of the in-game world as an impediment to playing a character who lives in that world.