Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7532143" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Obviously you know I don't agree with this.  I outlined upthread (somewhere near the beginning) what I felt are the most fundamental pieces of machinery/feedbacks that creates any singular sequence of play in traditional D&D and the holistic experience:1)  A mapped/keyed/scaled/stocked environment (primarily dungeon but possibly wilderness...where the game's machinery is put under pressure).2)  The exploration turn (and rules that interface with it such as distances, what is feasible in the interval, action resolution, rest requirements, PC build tools, equipment/spell load-out).3)  The Wandering Monster/Random Encounter "Clock" (which pressures 2 and doesn't reward resource-ablating combat).4)  Monster Reaction Rolls.5)  Neutral refereeing.6)  Potential adventuring day dynamics/potential rest availability/opportunity cost resource-based decision-making by players.7)  XP for gold/treasure (which again, doesn't reward getting into unnecessary combats).From many conversations in the past you know I'm very much a "system matters" advocate; rules, play procedures, play agenda and principles guide the conversation that we're having at the table and incline the mental overhead of all participants at the table toward certain things (rather than others).  I don't think that is a particularly controversial claim to make.  Even something like "follow the rules" vs "discard and/or ignore the rules at participant x's discretion" has a significant impact on a play paradigm.  So in light of that, its difficult for me to look at the above and think "that doesn't incline play toward a particular dynamic" which is what "system doesn't matter" ultimately entails.And then, when I consider the play excerpt I've been working through (and the hypothetical 4e transliteration of it...which could manifest in dozens of ways...perhaps it doesn't manifest anything like the 5e excerpt...but for illustration, I'm saying it does), I think it should be clear how the player of the Fighter, the player of the Rogue, and the player of the Wizard are dealing with different kinds of cognitive workload and different priorities (which creates different sorts of decision-points and attendant outcomes), sum total a different play paradigm, than that of traditional D&D.But it seems to me that you disagree with both of these things; (a) its not clear and (b) traditional D&D's fundamental machinery.If (b) is true, here is a quick thought on that.  We have pretty similar play durations (I believe we both started early 80s).  My thoughts on our experiences are this; you may have had personally influencing sim priorities and were likely surrounded by folks of similar interests/priorities.  I remember when Dragon was discussing these issues (D&D as game vs D&D as sim vs D&D as a collection of the two) and I remember some people having these discussions back then (at gaming shops and just in local groups of people...I was exposed to about 4 groups from the age of 7 - 10; most of them early teenagers).  There was a tension/divide (and there still is) that was growing and it became more pervasive as time went on (with a lot of people abandoning D&D for Runequest or Rolemaster).  As certain handbooks and articles came out, D&D culture began to drift to this heavy mash of the traditional concepts above and the growing sim priorities (throwing things out like xp for Treasure/Gold, not using Wandering Monsters because they weren't "realistic" for the ecosystem etc).  But I don't call that traditional D&D.   I'd call that the 2nd wave of D&D.Then the Dragonlancing of D&D came about with all of the White Wolf and LARPing influences as a massive influx of Illusionism/Force, big setting, big metaplot took hold.  I'd call that the 3rd wave of D&D, but I certainly wouldn't call it Trad D&D.There are 4 components to my above post:* Trad D&D fundamental machinery and system matters.* In relation to the above, why the 4e transliteration is so different procedurally (input), cognitive workload (input), and output.* 2nd wave of D&D* 3rd wave of D&DWhere do you disagree on the above 4?</blockquote>

Verification