Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

Wow. No. It was a new edition with new rules. People are welcome to use those new rules or not, but the implication that people were being excluded in the way you describe is nonsense.
I really don't think so. They specifically leaned the game towards a particular playstyle and thus, away from other playstyles. Therefore, fans of those other playstyles may feel less included. This is practically Newtonian to my mind.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

There's a whole lot of difference between "you can describe what this magic spell looks like however you want, the special effects don't matter, just the numbers" and a game that says "here are some numbers, what explanation for these numbers makes the most sense if you consider everything that we've established so far in the reality of this world."
There is a difference, but I contend how big a difference that is is very much subjective.
 

I really don't think so. They specifically leaned the game towards a particular playstyle and thus, away from other playstyles. Therefore, fans of those other playstyles may feel less included. This is practically Newtonian to my mind.

I think for most RPGs it is good idea to design for a specific playstyle. They will fill their own niche in the market. But D&D is not like most RPGs, it aims for mass appeal, and that requires more flexibility in the offered playstyles. So 4e might have been good design for a RPG, but it was not good design for D&D.
 

I really don't think so. They specifically leaned the game towards a particular playstyle and thus, away from other playstyles. Therefore, fans of those other playstyles may feel less included. This is practically Newtonian to my mind.
How those fans may feel is immaterial. They weren't excluded, just perhaps not catered to.
 


How fans feel about a game, especially one that has experienced as many sweeping changes over its history as D&D, is absolutely material. I completely disagree on this.
Your read on that, the one about exclusion, is the issue here. That's a very personal and idiosycratic read, and one you'd need to support idntou wanted anyone to take it seriously.
 


The idea that what we're calling the fiction is 'just flavour' is probably a core problem in how different people see what playing an RPG means.
When I'm reflecting on RPGing, I find it helpful to distinguish between mere colour/flavour, and fiction that actually matters to the play of the game.

Eg in dungeon-crawling D&D, the colour of the NPC's trousers normally is mere colour; whereas the location of the door in the wall, or the position of the chest in the room, is not: architecture and (at least some) furnishings are the stuff of which dungeon-crawling D&D is made.

When I play Prince Valiant, the location of a door in the wall, or the position of a chest, will typically be mere colour. To the extent that clothing can signal social class, it will probably be more important, as fiction, than it is in classic D&D.

Upthread, you talked about His Majesty the Worm, where the role of Bonds means that relationships between PCs become more than mere colour. The same is true in my Torchbearer 2e game, where the bickering between the Dwarf and the Elves isn't just "for fun", but also plays out - or sometimes plays against - Beliefs and Creeds and so is part of what drives the core engine of play.

I also see this as closely related to this from upthread:
Nothing that has stakes and requires resolution is actually being resolved, so we're in thespian "acting like my character and having conversations" mode. Which I know plenty of players who want that to be like 95% of their gameplay, but isn't really the intent of Blades.
I tend to prefer stakes to no-stakes. (Which doesn't preclude acting in character and having conversations. It's only if one assumes a traditional D&D resolution system that such an inference would arise.)

I think 4e probably was a notch further along on this than older editions, but only one notch. The unforgivable crime that 4e committed was just being honest and clear about it.
I did not find 4e D&D to be lacking in colour that mattered. I mean, that's obvious for skill challenges - actions can only be declared once fictional positioning is clear, and the resolution of each action changes the fiction and hence the decision-space for the next player and their character.

In combat, of course there is some stuff that 4e is indifferent too - eg whether a blow strikes the arm or the leg - but in that respect it's no different from other versions of D&D. But I've never had a similar experience of gonzo fantasy action in another FRPG. From using cold magic to freeze puddles into ice (Icy Terrain), to blasting demons through upper-storey walls into the street below (Thunder Wave), to pursuing goblin archers and cutting them down before they can escape down a secret hatch (Mighty Sprint + Come and Get It).

I know there were some would-be 4e players whose whole experience with the system consisted in being confused by their knocking of snakes and oozes prone. Thankfully for me, I wasn't one of them!
 

I did not find 4e D&D to be lacking in colour that mattered. I mean, that's obvious for skill challenges - actions can only be declared once fictional positioning is clear, and the resolution of each action changes the fiction and hence the decision-space for the next player and their character.

In combat, of course there is some stuff that 4e is indifferent too - eg whether a blow strikes the arm or the leg - but in that respect it's no different from other versions of D&D. But I've never had a similar experience of gonzo fantasy action in another FRPG. From using cold magic to freeze puddles into ice (Icy Terrain), to blasting demons through upper-storey walls into the street below (Thunder Wave), to pursuing goblin archers and cutting them down before they can escape down a secret hatch (Mighty Sprint + Come and Get It).

I know there were some would-be 4e players whose whole experience with the system consisted in being confused by their knocking of snakes and oozes prone. Thankfully for me, I wasn't one of them!

I had a lot of fun with 4e. For most of it I played a fighter with Come and Get It, which I thought was a fantastic power both thematically and in actual play. Whenever I used it, I came up with an in-character rationale for why the enemies were briefly drawn to me. I remember once CAGI'ing some dark elves because I had struck their priest, CAGI'ing some monsters I can't remember by playing possum, CAGI'ing some dire wolves by using my primal barbarian (multiclass) instincts to howl a challenge, and CAGI'ing some sword wraiths by unveiling my sword that hates undead and does extra damage to them.

There were also a couple of times where I couldn't think of a fun explanation, so I didn't use the power. But most of the time it was a creative challenge to come up with a satisfying (not forced) explanation and I was able to do it.

As I say, this is often a PICNIC issue (problem in chair not in computer)
 

I had a lot of fun with 4e. For most of it I played a fighter with Come and Get It, which I thought was a fantastic power both thematically and in actual play. Whenever I used it, I came up with an in-character rationale for why the enemies were briefly drawn to me. I remember once CAGI'ing some dark elves because I had struck their priest, CAGI'ing some monsters I can't remember by playing possum, CAGI'ing some dire wolves by using my primal barbarian (multiclass) instincts to howl a challenge, and CAGI'ing some sword wraiths by unveiling my sword that hates undead and does extra damage to them.

There were also a couple of times where I couldn't think of a fun explanation, so I didn't use the power. But most of the time it was a creative challenge to come up with a satisfying (not forced) explanation and I was able to do it.

As I say, this is often a PICNIC issue (problem in chair not in computer)

Ugh having to imagine all those things sounds positively exhausting!!!!
 

Remove ads

Top