Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4283022" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>All this is true, I agree. But I don't think that this goes to any issue of "casual" vs "hardcore", or to any question of simplicity vs complexity (I'm not sure that you think so either - maybe this is just a tangent).</p><p></p><p>Interesting, because I have quite a different reaction in looking through them and thinking about how I might build different sorts of characters. Admittedly I'm still getting familiar with my books, and I haven't read all the powers yet, but the Fighter powers combined with the Feat and Weapon rules gave me lots of ideas about different sorts of PCs, the Wizard powers suggested different sorts of casters (including a classic 1st ed Illusionist using Force Orb, Prismatic attacks, Confusion and Maze) and the Paladin powers the different concepts I mentioned earlier.</p><p></p><p>I agree that they all largely fit the description "damage + effect", but the different effects combined with the different stats that are used suggest to me quite a rich potential for play - both tactically rich and thematically rich.</p><p></p><p>More accessible I agree with. These are the clearest-written D&D rules I've seen since Moldvay Basic. But simpler and "bare essentials" I don't really agree with - I remain of the view that Imaro is right about the emergent tactical complexity, and I think that the game has far more than the "bare essentials" of (for example) Moldvay Basic. I think it has more of the "bare essentials" than 3E, because (for example) it has advice in the DMG on how to handle players who want to adopt director's stance (sidebar, p 28).</p><p></p><p>This stuff I agree is there but is of little personal interest to me. It's certainly not part of what makes the game attractive to me, nor part of what makes me think it is a good game.</p><p></p><p>I can't relate to the Wii vs Linux metaphor because I am not a computer person. But I can relate to the generic food metaphor, and I don't find it at all helpful. I apologise for the lengthiness that is about to ensue, but I want to try and explain why I don't find it helpful.</p><p></p><p>I'm a vegetarian who's sort of a hippy food snob. I live in a suburb of Melbourne called Fitzroy, which is (on a somewhat smaller Australian scale) a little like living in Greenwhich Village if one lived in NYC. When I watch TV I watch almost exclusivly SBS (in US terms, a bit like PBS on steroids). I am an academic in two literary disciplines - philosophy and law. When I go to the movies I mostly go to arthouse cinemas to watch non-Hollywood movies. By the standards of any mainstream cultural assessment in either the US or Australia I am part of the self-proclaimed cultural elite (though, being an academic rather than a private lawyer, not part of the financial elite!).</p><p></p><p>The reason I say all this is to try to give you a broad sense of my tastes. And my RPGing tastes aren't all that different from the picture I've tried to paint. I find Ron Edwards' essays and RPG reviews insightful, and I enjoy narrativist play. It is because I think that 4e is better suited to satisfying these sorts of RPGing tastes that I think it is a better game than 3E. And I don't think it does this by becoming more bland, or more generic, or more cookie-cutter, or more simplified (and I find the analogy to McDonalds utterly inapt). I think 4e achieves what I believe it achieves because it offers robust mechanics that support a degree of narrative flexibility, and player control of the narrative, that is (for D&D) unparalleled.</p><p></p><p>You are painting a picture of 3E as a free-thinker's paradise. But for me that notion is bizarre. I look at 3E as suffering from the same problems that have always plagued D&D - clunky mechanics that get in the way of narrative choice (eg by so tightly linking mechanics and in-game physics that I can't conceive of my PC successfully doing X unless s/he has the feat for X). As I said on another thread, the whole hit point mechanic in 3E, which is very hard to interpret as anything other than literal toughness, automatically lowers the tone of any game, because it makes the nature of human life and death in the gameworld almost cartoonish.</p><p></p><p>When it comes to hit points, however, 4e keeps the virtues of hit points as an effective combat resolution mechanic while rendering it, at the metagame level, a type of Fate Point system rather than any attempt to model in-game physics. This opens the door for a type of serious storytelling that (IME) D&D has not really permitted in the past, but which games like Rolemaster, or RuneQuest, or HeroWars, have.</p><p></p><p>And that's why I don't think 4e is simplistic, or at odds with serious or deep roleplaying, or in general a step away from "hardcore" towards "casual".</p><p></p><p>I do agree that it makes life harder for rules tinkerers. As I noted in a recent post on another thread, one of the things about 4e that I think is wonderful - namely, the realisation of thematic elements through the powers of the various monsters and characters - creates an obstacle to making adventures about new themes for which monsters don't yet exist. (Luckily, the MM seems to cover a pretty wide thematic range, relative to the sorts of themes one might try and explore using a high fantasy game as the vehicle.) But designing RPGs isn't playing them. In my posts in this thread I'm trying to do my best to evaluate 4e as a game to be played.</p><p></p><p>Apologies for an overlong post.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4283022, member: 42582"] All this is true, I agree. But I don't think that this goes to any issue of "casual" vs "hardcore", or to any question of simplicity vs complexity (I'm not sure that you think so either - maybe this is just a tangent). Interesting, because I have quite a different reaction in looking through them and thinking about how I might build different sorts of characters. Admittedly I'm still getting familiar with my books, and I haven't read all the powers yet, but the Fighter powers combined with the Feat and Weapon rules gave me lots of ideas about different sorts of PCs, the Wizard powers suggested different sorts of casters (including a classic 1st ed Illusionist using Force Orb, Prismatic attacks, Confusion and Maze) and the Paladin powers the different concepts I mentioned earlier. I agree that they all largely fit the description "damage + effect", but the different effects combined with the different stats that are used suggest to me quite a rich potential for play - both tactically rich and thematically rich. More accessible I agree with. These are the clearest-written D&D rules I've seen since Moldvay Basic. But simpler and "bare essentials" I don't really agree with - I remain of the view that Imaro is right about the emergent tactical complexity, and I think that the game has far more than the "bare essentials" of (for example) Moldvay Basic. I think it has more of the "bare essentials" than 3E, because (for example) it has advice in the DMG on how to handle players who want to adopt director's stance (sidebar, p 28). This stuff I agree is there but is of little personal interest to me. It's certainly not part of what makes the game attractive to me, nor part of what makes me think it is a good game. I can't relate to the Wii vs Linux metaphor because I am not a computer person. But I can relate to the generic food metaphor, and I don't find it at all helpful. I apologise for the lengthiness that is about to ensue, but I want to try and explain why I don't find it helpful. I'm a vegetarian who's sort of a hippy food snob. I live in a suburb of Melbourne called Fitzroy, which is (on a somewhat smaller Australian scale) a little like living in Greenwhich Village if one lived in NYC. When I watch TV I watch almost exclusivly SBS (in US terms, a bit like PBS on steroids). I am an academic in two literary disciplines - philosophy and law. When I go to the movies I mostly go to arthouse cinemas to watch non-Hollywood movies. By the standards of any mainstream cultural assessment in either the US or Australia I am part of the self-proclaimed cultural elite (though, being an academic rather than a private lawyer, not part of the financial elite!). The reason I say all this is to try to give you a broad sense of my tastes. And my RPGing tastes aren't all that different from the picture I've tried to paint. I find Ron Edwards' essays and RPG reviews insightful, and I enjoy narrativist play. It is because I think that 4e is better suited to satisfying these sorts of RPGing tastes that I think it is a better game than 3E. And I don't think it does this by becoming more bland, or more generic, or more cookie-cutter, or more simplified (and I find the analogy to McDonalds utterly inapt). I think 4e achieves what I believe it achieves because it offers robust mechanics that support a degree of narrative flexibility, and player control of the narrative, that is (for D&D) unparalleled. You are painting a picture of 3E as a free-thinker's paradise. But for me that notion is bizarre. I look at 3E as suffering from the same problems that have always plagued D&D - clunky mechanics that get in the way of narrative choice (eg by so tightly linking mechanics and in-game physics that I can't conceive of my PC successfully doing X unless s/he has the feat for X). As I said on another thread, the whole hit point mechanic in 3E, which is very hard to interpret as anything other than literal toughness, automatically lowers the tone of any game, because it makes the nature of human life and death in the gameworld almost cartoonish. When it comes to hit points, however, 4e keeps the virtues of hit points as an effective combat resolution mechanic while rendering it, at the metagame level, a type of Fate Point system rather than any attempt to model in-game physics. This opens the door for a type of serious storytelling that (IME) D&D has not really permitted in the past, but which games like Rolemaster, or RuneQuest, or HeroWars, have. And that's why I don't think 4e is simplistic, or at odds with serious or deep roleplaying, or in general a step away from "hardcore" towards "casual". I do agree that it makes life harder for rules tinkerers. As I noted in a recent post on another thread, one of the things about 4e that I think is wonderful - namely, the realisation of thematic elements through the powers of the various monsters and characters - creates an obstacle to making adventures about new themes for which monsters don't yet exist. (Luckily, the MM seems to cover a pretty wide thematic range, relative to the sorts of themes one might try and explore using a high fantasy game as the vehicle.) But designing RPGs isn't playing them. In my posts in this thread I'm trying to do my best to evaluate 4e as a game to be played. Apologies for an overlong post. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
4E is for casuals, D&D is d0med
Top