D&D 4E 4e: the new paradigm

[AllisterH]

iAre the two approaches that incompatible? More specifically:
- Isn’t there any other way to balance mundane classes vs spell-casters than the per encounter martial powers?
- couldn’t powers make more sense than “teleport or heal every time you off someone, just because you’re a striker or leader” and still be cool? really, i’ve seen Magic cards with more narrative consistency.

I think this is the problem. You want the martial classes to "make sense" or at the least, seem to want to restrict them to a) things they were capable of at 1st level and or b) just better than stuff they were doing at 1st level.

Magic operates on an entirely different system where at higher levels, not only do you get better with stuff that you had at 1st level and can also cast more lower level spells representing the same "gain" that the martial classes have but also most importantly, they gain entirely new powers that have NOTHING in common with what they have at 1st level.

Basically, you have non-magical classes that basically can be charted on a linear scale with magical classes on an exponential scale.

The Vancian model that was used to balance it didn't work that well IMO since it seemed D&D (all versions, not just 3.5E) assumed that at a specific point in time, you would have full access to a caster (around 5-6th level) and if you didn't encounters became much harder than normal.

If D&D topped at 6th level (E6 highlights this perfectly), then yeah, Vancian casting is perfectly acceptable.

The other way is to limit D&D magic. Seriously, when I compare not just the power but the entirely different capabiliteis that D&D magic gives compared to "balanced" systems like HERO and GURPS, I shake my head in disbelief. The actual power of spells in the hands of a mid to high level D&D wizard just have no match in other RPGs that expect "mundanes" to be full partners.

It's not just Meteor Swarm (that's just damage), its the weird stuff like Forcecage, Teleport, Polymorph, Illusion magic, Flight etc. However restricting this too much has its own problems, namely the fact that aska geek what's D&D about and its not about a guy grimly swiping down enemies with his sword, its the guy with the spells.

There's also the weird dichtomy that non-spellcasters are expected to deal with the decidely non-mundane with mundane methods. In a realistic world, there's just no way that a human fighter is fighting evenly versus a Hill Giant in melee. That just isn't possible and that's one of the most mundane creatures above level 6 you can encounter. Again, another reason why E6 works is that the creatures used are basically humanoids with swords.

I personally hated the fact that increasingly as you level, it became more about your gear. Take away a mage's magical gear and the only difference is his stamina. His powers still work for the most part against the same enemies. Take away a mundane class' magical gear and you're looking at some pretty weak sauce.

 

[La Bete]

Ron Edwards has a lot to answer for.

 

[Dark080matter]

Basically, you have non-magical classes that basically can be charted on a linear scale with magical classes on an exponential scale.

This. The most succinct explanation for 3.5 player progression I have seen in my life. And how true.

The whole GNS theory thing I actually had to look up on Wikipedia cuz I'd never heard of it before (I must have missed the memo). Personally, if we're going to do classifications, I suppose I would consider myself strongly Narrativist and Gamist at a somewhat close 2nd. As a DM, I most want to be able to tell a fantastical story based on my (loosely) pre-designed framework and fleshed out by the decisions and personalities of the Players/PC's as they go along, and I most enjoy seeing players approach more or less "equal opportunity" challenges where they all can contribute meaningfully to the outcome in some mechanical way... so I think tactical choices are great (Gamist), but then again choices made in character are even better and something that I rarely punish(Narrativist). Maybe that's why I like all that I've seen of 4e, and welcome the shining new paradigm. Or something..?

I've never looked at a PC party and plotted how best to kill them, rather I always strive to create the greatest challenge that I think they can make it through alive that also tells a great story, and generally is tailored to work with the backstories of characters. I'm a pathetic DM

I suppose I can now see why people who are "Simulationist" in outlook would have a problem with the new edition. I guess I never considered that some people would be playing DnD because they want to... what, create an exacting simulation of a fantasy world? I'm not trying to trivialize that outlook because apparently that is what a lot of people want, and it's never something I really considered. It makes sense that 4ed might not be up their alley though.

 

[Alnag]

I don't accept GNS as a valid approach to game analysis. That said I see a serious shift in paradigm to more balanced game from let's say diversified interaction. I am not sure how that will impact my gaming, cause I usually play the game more to my own ideas and not always exactly as the rules say. They are just guidelines after all.

 

[Belorin]

I wonder how you can have fun playing when you are so busy worrying about the way things work, sounds more like work. I know simulation has it's place in the game, as a matter of fact Gary Gygax's passing reminds us all of where D&D has it's roots. Chainmail: Rules for Medieval Miniatures. But, first and foremost D&D is a game, which we play to have fun.

Bel

 

[SaffroN]

I still don't really understand the difference between the two. And I've seen more posts on the subject than i can shake a stick at.

4e: gamist/abstraction - I find that 4e deals out plenty of immersion. I would go as far as to say that it gives out more. The game is much more streamlined and allows me to get pulled into the experience.

3.x: immersion/simulation/believability - I'll just pull up one example: the fighter vs the wizard... Yeah, it makes sense that the wizard is just so much more awesome than the fighter. and that all the fighter can do (basicly) is hit whack stuff while the wizard is off chucking fireballs, unlocking doors and turning invisible, etc. However, under no circumstances would i call that immersing. Believable, Sure thing. But they are not the same.

Having a game with abstract rules helps me to get wrapped up and engrossed in the game... I guess I'm weird that way.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I still don't really understand the difference between the two. And I've seen more posts on the subject than i can shake a stick at.

4e: gamist/abstraction - I find that 4e deals out plenty of immersion. I would go as far as to say that it gives out more. The game is much more streamlined and allows me to get pulled into the experience.

3.x: immersion/simulation/believability - I'll just pull up one example: the fighter vs the wizard... Yeah, it makes sense that the wizard is just so much more awesome than the fighter. and that all the fighter can do (basicly) is hit whack stuff while the wizard is off chucking fireballs, unlocking doors and turning invisible, etc. However, under no circumstances would i call that immersing. Believable, Sure thing. But they are not the same.

Having a game with abstract rules helps me to get wrapped up and engrossed in the game... I guess I'm weird that way.

Nods, which is why I think the shift is less gamist vs. simulationist as so much as:

3.5 mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards world-building/simulation. Where the rules and mechanics are the strict and true laws of that world.

4e mechanics/rules has its leanings more towards narrative/story-building. Where the rules and mechanics are there to allow players to influence and engage in a narrative storyline through a world not as heavily dependent on strict rules to govern the way it works.

 

[CleverNickName]

The paradigm shift that I am experiencing seems to come from things that I am being told to pay attention to and ignore at the same time.

Like healing surges, for example. There are carefully-formulated, numerical rules governing their application in the game, and every player will have them carefully counted and dosed out for the duration of the gaming session...yet as the storyteller, every time someone uses one, I can only wave my hand and say "you feel better now, for some reason." The mechanics tell me to pay attention, and the story tells me not to. It hurts my suspension of disbelief.

...which is an odd thing to say. You would think that the hard part would be believing magic is real, elves walk among us as equals, and that unicorns frolic in yonder glade. But for some reason, I am really hung up on the nature of healing and damage.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

You pay attention to the mechanics to help smoothly progress through the story, not to specifically detail the story or how it is narrated.

Each Healing Surge can be different (depending on how it is caused) these can be done in a narrative fashion, as many, many, many posts in other threads have shown.

So you do pay attention while playing through the story, but to bring a thorough and narratively engaging plot/campaign.

 

[Raduin711]

I feel that the rules are improving, and in order to improve they must change, and that change sometimes means that we have to look at things in a new way.

In the transition between 2nd edition and 3rd edition, one of the hard changes to the paradigm was the acceptance of any race to any class. To many gamers, allowing dwarves to be mages was a point of contention. Somehow allowing this change "killed" what it meant to be a dwarf. The world of D&D was changed forever. Sure people argued that your race shouldn't determine what class you could take, but still people resisted: Dwarves can't be mages! It's part of what makes a dwarf, a dwarf! And what about their magic resistance? And what about the fiction? I have to admit, I had my reservations.

So, this time around, I have basically just decided that things will come out for the better in the end. A few forum posters will call that naive, and that's ok. I tend to think of it as experience. Things like healing surges, and the logic behind various spells, prayers and exploits will work themselves out in the end, just like dwarven wizards. This is a game about using your imagination, right?