4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med

[FireLance]

There still is a usenet. Weird.

Usenet is the one true... ah, nevermind.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Sometimes it's fun to play checkers or Carcassone. Othertimes it's fun to play Advanced Civ or Age of Rennessance.

I'll drive 30 min to play the first couple of games. I'll drive a lot longer to play the others.

Are you comparing 4E to Checkers while 3E is Age of Civilization? If so:

Calling 4E Checkers is a new version of "THAC0 kept the Riff-Raff out". It's petty and wrong-headed.

Also, I'll drive an extra hour to play Settlers of Catan vs. anything else, but thats because it is the Best Game Ever (anecdotally). Your decision to generate value by your concept of "complexity" is about the same kind of anecdote.

 

[pemerton]

Normally I agree with Hong, but on this occasion I don't. Saying that 4e is simpler than 3E, and hence for casual gamers, is like saying that HeroQuest is simpler than 3E (true), and hence for casual gamers (false) - in fact, most gamers who play HeroQuest are probably more serious than the average 3E player.

I am a serious gamer. And on reading the 4e rulebooks I think it is a game that is far more attractive to me than 3E ever was. Of course, one can generalise unwisely from one's own experience, but 4e has one dominant feature that makes it attractive to a serious gamer: sophisticated and (more-or-less) balanced mechanics on which meaningful story can be hung in many different ways.

To compare it to another game for serious players, namely, Rolemaster. Anyone familiar with the longrunning series of Rolemaster Companions will know that these consisted of complex optional rules intended to enable the system to deliver slightly different play experiences. In 4e, a good number of those variations in play experience can be produced at the table without needing to change the mechanics, by instead adopting a particular shared narration of ingame events within the parameters set by the mechanics of action resolution.

Quick someone silence him, the truth is leaking out.

FWIW, I think he is on exactly the right track. As I've predicted before, people will pick up this simple game and run with it. And many of them will then move on to the next fad in a matter of months. And many of the ones who stay will be less inclined to buy more books because the simple is better approach will not fit with the more and more add-ons approach. Does that mean no one will play? Hell no. But give it time.

For the first time ever, a new version of D&D is not on the the cutting edge of "richly detailed". 2E was there at first. But late in 2E it was overtaken by other games that did more and better, and the only thing had going for it was the name. And it was slowly but steadily dying.

The notion that even 1st ed AD&D was richly detailed compared to some of its contemporaries or near-contemporaries - RM, RQ, C&S, etc - is a little implausible. Even moreso for 2nd ed.

3E was not a richly detailed game on a par with those systems either - it was an uneasy compromise between the abstract gameplay mechanics of hit points and armour class, and the simulationist detail of skill points and formulae for magic item creation.

So far, the more I read of the 4e books the more impressed I am by the cleverness of the mechanical design, and the flexibility it permits for the layering of as much narrative detail as one might like in respect of matters like actions during skill challenges, performance of rituals and so on.

But what it is jumping the bandwagon on is 'rules lite'. It's coming a little late to the party but lets face it. Rules light games are pretty popular and 4E is pretty 'cutting edge' in that respect.

<snip>

As games evolved through the 90's there was a trend towards trying to find a rule for everything. This brought us the Skills and Powers books of 2nd ed, Shadowrun 3, Gurps, the infamous Palladium (god knows what edition) and yes, Third Edition. Since the release of 3.5 however the trend has reversed across the gamer community. The two best examples of this in my mind are "Castles and Crusades" and "True20". While the two systems appeal to widely different audiences, C&C is seen as 'old school' while T20 is the indy rock band both are very simple, intuitive, straight forward systems. I think 4E hopes to appeal to both, with the core mechanic of "Roll a D20 and seen what happens" staying the same but with a more progressive framework built around it.

I don't really agree that 4e is "rules lite" - depending what the measure is, of course, but it seems to have mechanics considerably more complicated than Call of Cthulhu, for example.

I'm also not sure I agree with your timelilne - Basic Roleplaying, for example, can be a very rules light system if some of the RQ complexity is stripped away, and it has been around for ever. Tunnels and Trolls likewise is venerable and rules light. And one of the most mechanically complex and clunky RPGs - Rolemaster - is nearly as old.

In all seriousness, if all you want from a game system is a skeleton of a conflict resolution system on which to hang the unlimited worlds of the imagination. (No bad thing) What does 4e offer you that, for example, FUDGE does not?

200 or so pages of power descriptions, magic items etc, plus the same (or a bit more) of monsters. That is, it's not rules light.

A better departure for comparison might be HeroWars/Quest. This is a system with a simple core mechanic which, in its various implementations and once magic is added quickly becomes quite complex in play. It is completely non-simulationist, and intended to support fairly serious narrative play.

4e is a system with a simple core mechanic, a few associated mechanics (like hit points and healing surges) but a host of unique powers (and obviously many more to come) which implement those mechanics in various subtle ways. It is not as non-simulationist as HeroWars - for example, turns take place in ingame time, most attack powers correlate at least roughly to particular ingame happenings, movement and position are tracked in combat, etc - but the simulationism is subordinate to a serious gamist agenda (which is probably ripe to be twisted to a narrativist one, provided that the narrativism is not too gritty or serious).

 

[Family]

 

[Sylrae]

It has the D&D name and brand recognition. Opinions seem to be split on if it's still D&D though. I haven't played it yet so I can't say one way or the other myself, but they seem to be a lot more "It's just not D&D anymore." opinions floating around than I recall from the 3e days. There certainly were some very vocal 3e detractors, even here, but percentage wise 4e seems to have turned off an alarmingly large number of posters.

To me it seems to play more like Dragon Strike (a board game D&D imitation with simpler rules). It's D&D-Like, and it's great for 1 shot sessions. But for something longer, the mechanics are not what I would look for in a less mechanics based game about rich storytelling without an emphasis on combat (White Wolf); OR what I would want from D&D, which would be story oriented but have more combat. It plays more like a board game, and less like a D&D campaign or a white wolf campaign (that's not just WoD, but also the Trinity series of White Wolf games.)

from the session I played, and what I read in here, it seems like it will be a better Idea to incorporate some of the ideas I like from 4e into my 3.5e games, rather than trying to "Fix" 4e itself.

 

[Leatherhead]

You should check out the size of WoWwiki sometime.

I would like to point out that WoW noobs don't bother with looking things up on WoWwiki, or virtually any other online resource for that matter. However, they sometimes read the small book that comes with the CDs that covers generic commands and has a brief description of the races and classes.

 

[Sylrae]

This.

Who cares if it's "casual"? Is it fun?

Note: There is no "yeah, but". There is either "yes" or "no".

What if the "yeah, but" is followed by "not as much as 3.5 (which is more detail oriented), OR White Wolf (which is more story oriented)"

It has the D&D name and brand recognition. Opinions seem to be split on if it's still D&D though. I haven't played it yet so I can't say one way or the other myself, but they seem to be a lot more "It's just not D&D anymore." opinions floating around than I recall from the 3e days. There certainly were some very vocal 3e detractors, even here, but percentage wise 4e seems to have turned off an alarmingly large number of posters.

To me it seems to play more like Dragon Strike (a board game D&D imitation with simpler rules). It's D&D-Like, and it's great for 1 shot sessions. But for something longer, the mechanics are not what I would look for in a less mechanics based game about rich storytelling without an emphasis on combat (White Wolf); OR what I would want from D&D, which would be story oriented but have more combat. It plays more like a board game, and less like a D&D campaign or a white wolf campaign (that's not just WoD, but also the Trinity series of White Wolf games.)

from the session I played, and what I read in here, it seems like it will be a better Idea to incorporate some of the ideas I like from 4e into my 3.5e games, rather than trying to "Fix" 4e itself.

I think for now instead of getting the 4e books im just gonna get all the 3.5e books i wanted but never had the cash to buy, hopefully before theyre hard to find.

then maybe ill start buying the nWoD books.

I may change my mind about 4e if they put out further supplements that are good enough, or I may change my mind if 4e fials and they release a 4.5e thats drastically different. only time will tell, but for the present, 4e is not something I'm really motivated to blow 110$ on.I'm

 

[Intense_Interest]

What if the "yeah, but" is followed by "not as much as 3.5 (which is more detail oriented), OR White Wolf (which is more story oriented)"

Some of the most casual games I've ever been a part of were White Wolf properties. Drift-in, Drift-out narrative about stalking an apartment building that looked like the one we were in.

And further, post-conversion of 2E to 3E had its own casual air, called "not having System Mastery". The fact that 3E was a bag of rats to DM was what made the table-time become highly optimized, which led to making D&D a "Hardcore" indulgence. Which is why we've got what we have here.

Failing to chase players away from the table by its very nature isn't "casual", its a bad game.

 

[FireLance]

Interesting bit from another of Malstrom's articles:

Why Experienced Gamers Prefer Obstacles

I have often asked why wealthy people prefer the obstacles to becoming rich remain (these obstacles consist of the taxes on income, legal walls, as financial education which wealthy teach themselves but universities and government schools do not). Is it raw elitism where the rich got what they wanted and want the rest of to remain poor to they can appear like ‘lords’ over us as if they were special? Maybe. The reason why the wealthy prefer the obstacles is that they spent considerable time, money, and effort to get around those obstacles and would be furious to see younger generations not have to go through those same ‘trials’.

It is not unlike the old man saying to the young, “When I went to school, I had to walk in the snow uphill both ways,” in a sense of irritation that, as civilization advances, those obstacles retreat. But it would be mad for him to destroy school buses and demand the young walk in snow to get to school.

Experienced gamers have spent enormous time and effort at learning games. When computer magazines came out, old timers were irritated that one did not have to learn how to program games themselves. Instead, they could just copy what was shown in a magazine. And those gamers, as they aged, became irritated when games were sold in zip-loc bags in stores. Now, gamers did not even need to put in the code! When the NES came out, computer gamers were irritated that the new gamers, the NES generation, would not know the burn of long loading times or dealing with a complex keyboard for all gaming. Arcade gamers were irritated that the 3d gamers did not have to play and replay a part of the game a thousand times until he got it right to advance. Games were becoming easier and removing those obstacles previous gamers had spent so much of their time and effort to work. Imagine the frustration of a computer gamer, having to create multiple boot discs to get a certain VooDoo graphics to work to play a huge RPG epic, become annoyed at younger gamers who do nothing but pop in a disc!

The people who are opposed to eliminating additional obstacles are those who have spent the time and effort surmounting the prior ones. Along their intense focus of surmounting those obstacles, they become confused that the obstacles were the point in the first place! For new games, they demand more obstacles to be placed in their path. In time, the gamer becomes twisted to think gaming is nothing but surmounting obstacles. The ‘hardcore’ gamer will then begin to label these obstacles as ‘art’. When an obstacle is removed to allow growth, the ‘hardcore’ player perceives that some art of gaming is removed. Using my wealthy analogy, it would be as if the Government removed legal obstacles and the wealthy crying out that the ‘art’ of becoming rich is being lost.

Sounds very familiar...

 

[babomb]

I certainly hope 4e's not like the Wii; my Wii has sat idle for months.