D&D 4E So all these wacky arguments are still about 4e, right?

[tuxgeo]

You are focusing on story-driven narratives... and you call it "D&D Tactics"?

We could always focus on narrative-driven breath-mints, and call it "D&D Tic-Tacs."

I also disagree (as do some others) that 2E and 4E could be easily lumped together. I also disagree that "all those wacky arguments" are about edition.

(I guess I'm just in a disagreeable mood today, so I should probably leave it at that.)

 

[Dragonblade]

You are focusing on story-driven narratives... and you call it "D&D Tactics"?

As someone who played and still plays 4e quite extensively, let me assure you that is in fact a very story driven RPG at its core. Don't let the tactical combat system fool you.

Its a perfect system for running a JRPG style tabletop game ala Final Fantasy (especially Final Fantasy Tactics hence the name "D&D Tactics"), Shining Force, Dragon Quest, Suikoden, Breath of Fire, and so on. 4e excels at story-rich (i.e. railroaded) adventure paths with elaborate set piece combats and boss fights.

Its not everyone's preferred play style, of course, which is why I suggested there should be two product lines. But if you do like that JRPG style of linear story heavy game, 4e is a freaking masterpiece.

 

[Dragonblade]

I also disagree (as do some others) that 2E and 4E could be easily lumped together.

From a rules perspective, no. You are quite right. However, the tone and focus of 2e on plot heavy, character focused adventures is far more suited to the natural strengths of the 4e engine, IMO. Whereas 3e's simulationist tendencies are better matched with the sandboxy strategic resource management of 1e.

 

[dmgorgon]

From a rules perspective, no. You are quite right. However, the tone and focus of 2e on plot heavy, character focused adventures is far more suited to the natural strengths of the 4e engine, IMO. Whereas 3e's simulationist tendencies are better matched with the sandboxy strategic resource management of 1e.

As a 2e fan, I don't agree with that at all. 2e was friendly to all different kinds of adventures. It supported everything from massive dungeon crawls to murder mystery horror modules (Ravenloft).

As for simulation, I think 2e did a far better job at it than 3e. 2nd edition had rules for damaging armor (DR points), weapon type vs armor type rules, critical hit location and injury systems (bleeding, broken bones), called shots, and the list goes on. In fact, 3e did not introduce anything new that 2e didn't already have for simulation play. It even published historical campaign settings (Rome, Vikings, Crusades, etc).

 

[Umbran]

As someone who played and still plays 4e quite extensively, let me assure you that is in fact a very story driven RPG at its core. Don't let the tactical combat system fool you.

Please allow me to be more specific.

When one sees "D&D Tactics", one is going to think, "Gee, this game must be about tactics!" They are *not* going to think, "Gee, this game is about stories!"

Its a perfect system for running a JRPG style tabletop game ala Final Fantasy (especially Final Fantasy Tactics hence the name "D&D Tactics"), Shining Force, Dragon Quest, Suikoden, Breath of Fire, and so on. 4e excels at story-rich (i.e. railroaded) adventure paths with elaborate set piece combats and boss fights.

Ah. In my world "story driven" in no way, shape, or form, equates to "railroad".

 

[dmgorgon]

DoaM is a decent example. One option on one class in a playtest document, right? There was no credible evidence that DoaM was gong to become de rigueur through the game - the overwhelming majority of classes didn't have DoaM. No credible evidence that the options you might like would not generally be available. Agreed?

This means no reason to think folks weren't listening. If what you say above is the whole story, then DoaM should not have been a major issue. But, it was.

Thus, there is another issue at hand other than feeling that folks don't listen.

Actually, I agree that we can't be sure what the designers think, but we do have an indication from what the designers have said. IMO, many of the statements made by the designers (or lack thereof) have contributed to this problem.

For example, in a Q&A, Rodney justified DoaM in a way that doesn't sit well with my play-style at all. In fact, I don't think it makes any sense, but that's just my opinion. I think his response got many folks very concerned with the perceived direction of the game.

Of course, this is in contrast to other problems that have created tension on the forums. Second Wind was one of those issues, but the designers listened and responded to those concerns. On the other hand, the DoaM issue was left to fester and we still have yet to hear an clear response from the designers. Sadly legitimate concerns with the mechanic have been buried in several recent forum tirades and ridiculous open letters.

Sure, perhaps they are not obligated to respond and perhaps it's good for business if the forums light up, but I can only feel bad for those poor forum moderators that have to deal with hit.

All I'm saying is that more effort could be put into managing perceptions. I agree that we have no way of knowing what the designers are doing. For all we know it could be a deliberate action on their part to spark debate about a playstyle issue they've known about for a long time.

 

[Ahnehnois]

As for simulation, I think 2e did a far better job at it than 3e.

I have to agree. The big difference between 2e and 3e is standardization, not simulation.

 

[darjr]

I didn't want to take this position, but I must. I have come to understand that there are, at a minimum, two extremes of play style that are not compatible. That need such fundamental support in the rules that you can't turn one into the other.

On top of that each extreme has a style of adventure and setting supplement that are also largely incompatible.

I'm not saying that they absolutely couldn't be used by the other, but crossing over would require a lot of work that may not be worth it to many, maybe most.

I don't think two different games, or one game with swap-able parts, like pathfinder character archetypes, can solve the problem. And that is just two extreme's along the spectrum, I think there are more that would clash like this.

I wish, and think its about time, that WotC showed us how, exactly, the modular system is supposed to solve for this, a single solid example would be nice. Because as it stands I'm not sure there can be such a thing.

 

[Reyemile]

Please allow me to be more specific.

When one sees "D&D Tactics", one is going to think, "Gee, this game must be about tactics!" They are *not* going to think, "Gee, this game is about stories!"



Ah. In my world "story driven" in no way, shape, or form, equates to "railroad".

"Railroad" might have been a poor explanation here. I think it's more accurate to call 4e "D&D tactics" because your powers are tactical as opposed to strategic. For me, 4e games were more story-driven in the sense that players are less likely to bypass a story completely just by using elements on their character sheet ("A murder mystery?" Detect Lie, Speak with Dead, Clairsentience, Teleport, Force Cage, "bad guy's in jail, let's go kill Tiamat now!")

 

[Dragonblade]

As a 2e fan, I don't agree with that at all. 2e was friendly to all different kinds of adventures. It supported everything from massive dungeon crawls to murder mystery horror modules (Ravenloft).

As for simulation, I think 2e did a far better job at it than 3e. 2nd edition had rules for damaging armor (DR points), weapon type vs armor type rules, critical hit location and injury systems (bleeding, broken bones), called shots, and the list goes on. In fact, 3e did not introduce anything new that 2e didn't already have for simulation play. It even published historical campaign settings (Rome, Vikings, Crusades, etc).

I played 2e from the day it was released, till the day WotC published 3e. And yes, considering that the rules were basically tweaked 1e rules, you could absolutely play it in the style you talk about it.

But the tone and atmosphere that 2e tried to convey in the fluff with its implied focus on character growth (as opposed to mechanical PC advancement), and stories put it directly at odds with the underlying mechanics. Level drain, save or die mechanics, LFQW (though to a lesser extent than 3e) etc. all of these things are far better suited for running through a dungeon crawl with a PC that is a thinly veiled avatar of the player, and not for extended story-focused campaigns that didn't involve luck, house rules, Raise Dead, or DM fudging.

But now we are circling around the same play-style issues again. You will continue to disagree and present anecdotal evidence that is at odds with my own experience, and that's fine. That's why these differences are irreconcilable. What we want out of the game and how we think the game can get there are fundamentally incompatible.