4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me just plug for the enworld kickstarter here...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

more? I'm happy to plug more!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] very true. Even in 1e the whole "I can use most any weapon pretty well" wasn't particularly significant. Every PC got some magic weapon and once you had one the minor tactical advantages you might get from switching weapons weren't worth it. A +1 sword is better against skeletons than a non-magical mace. Besides, your DM is very forgiving if you can carry a pole arm, a bow, and 2-3 different melee weapons around with you on top of armor and supplies without penalty... Archery could be pretty effective, but it was rarely decisive and would be decisive in 4e in the same situation (IE where the enemy cannot approach the party and lacks effective ranged attacks). Its not like a 4e fighter can't use a bow, he's even automatically proficient with most bows...

I'd note too that paladins in 1e were hard-coded against archery, it violated their code of honor to not be in the front lines. Of course the "make a player option overpowered and then add punishment mechanics" design of AD&D always meant that the standard player approach to everything was figuring out how to get the DM to foolishly allow them to subvert restrictions. I cannot tell you how many UA barbarians got played to pleas of "Its just a magic +4 vorpal sword, barbarians would use that. Conan would use that, and Bracers of AC2 aren't very magical!" ROFLMAO. Of course without all the items the UA barb was utterly useless except at low level. Impressively tough, but good luck hitting AC -4 and you were going to NEED that d12 when you got hit every single round... Honestly I know of no point in even making comparisons between 4e and AD&D generally in terms of character design mechanics. It is like comparing a club with an assault rifle.

 

[Ratskinner]

And as in the other thread, I have just shown that this is not so. You are foucing on the flavour text of a power (is my magical missile green or blue, screaming or chanting?) and disregarding its mechanical parameters (keywords and effects). But it is the latter that produces (in my view) such tight thematic play in 4e.

I think that's something that varies with personal taste and, for me anyway, the power in question. I don't find the X's and O's very compelling when it comes to thematic play in general, but some powers highlight it better than others. Perhaps I was spoiled by having already played games like FATE which handle such things with a much lighter mechanical overhead than D&D? ::shrug::

 

[billd91]

I'd note too that paladins in 1e were hard-coded against archery, it violated their code of honor to not be in the front lines.

Not in the Players Handbook. In fact, bows and arrows were specifically mentioned in the paladin text as counting as only one weapon together when accounting for a paladin's magical items.
Anything of that nature would have come with Unearthed Arcana making them a subclass of cavalier rather than fighter - and Unearthed Arcana wasn't universally adopted.

 

[JustinAlexander]

Come and Get It is another example. Its flavour text is well-known, but in my game I don't think it's ever been narrated like that. Rather, the polearm fighter uses the forced movement in combination with his billion-and-one enhancing feats and items to completely own the battlefield around him. And we narrate it, typically, as deft work with his polearm. But that doesn't change the fact that Come and Get It - via its mechanics - plays a strong role in establishing and reinforcing the story of that fighter as a dogged, unflabbable, quintessentially dwarven devotee of Moradin, who is no good at ranged combat but who can hold off and defeat seemingly any number of foes in melee. (Which makes it all the more dramatic when, every now and then, he fails to control the battlefield and endure the onrushing hordes, and needs to be rescued as a result.)

We've been around this mulberry bush before and I doubt the outcome will be any different this time around. But this is probably the most direct I've seen you be in describing your creative process, so I'm going to take the opportunity to analyze it. To break it down into discrete steps:

(1) Ignore the flavor text that exists.
(2) Write new flavor text.
(3) Explore the themes created by the new flavor text.
(4) Claim that those themes are inherently and indelibly in the mechanics.

Nothing wrong with the first three steps, of course. But it's that fourth step which results in large numbers of ENWorld posters sighing exasperatedly in your direction in thread after thread after thread.

Because, of course, I could just as easily rewrite the flavor text of Come and Get It so that its mechanical effect is created by sneaking around the battlefield, throwing mud in people's eyes, tripping them, calling out false battle orders in the mimicked voice of their commander, and so forth. And then I could talk about the "fact" that Come and Get It -- via its mechanics -- plays a strong role in establishing and reinforcing the story of that fighter who is sneaky and dishonorable and opportunistic and cowardly. (Toss in Battle Awareness to represent the character's paranoia, Shift the Battlefield as another "mud in the eye" tactic, Get Over Here as the character grabbing allies and throwing them at opponents so they don't have to fight them, and Last Ditch Evasion without any changes at all.)

Which, ultimately, reveals that your "fact" isn't a fact at all. When you use the mechanics to model a dogged and unflappable warrior and I use the same process you describe to model the Joker, it becomes clear that the thematic reinforcement you're receiving is entirely derived from the flavor text you've imposed on the mechanic. And, as I say, there's nothing wrong with that. But you'd probably have even more success if you were more self-aware of what your process actually is.

 

[Balesir]

This looks a fun game - let's analyse:

To break it down into discrete steps:

(1) Ignore the flavor text that exists.

I could argue for "take the existing flavour text as just one example", but let's let that slide to just "put the flavour text aside".

(2) Write new flavor text.

This is not a pipe. The "new" flavour text, too, is just an example. It's not really relevant to the argument; you, too, are getting all tied up in irreleventia.

(3) Explore the themes created by the new flavor text.

No - explore how the mechanics relate to a supported general theme, regardless of how that theme is described in the flavour text. A substantial part of the argument, here, is that it isn't the flavour text that is supporting the theme. Flavour text can be added, subtracted or changed such that the flavour being applied either is helpful in supporting the theme or it isn't. It's better if it's helpful, because who would want to use unhelpful flavour text? But it's really beside the point as far as the argument, here, is concerned, which is that the core of the "theme" comes from the mechanical effects.

(4) Claim that those themes are inherently and indelibly in the mechanics.

A power that pulls enemies into melee range, much as one that gives bonuses for being engaged in melee with several enemies, would seem to support a "melee combatant" theme. That seems pretty clear, to me - what alternative theme did you have in mind?

Because, of course, I could just as easily rewrite the flavor text of Come and Get It so that its mechanical effect is created by sneaking around the battlefield, throwing mud in people's eyes, tripping them, calling out false battle orders in the mimicked voice of their commander, and so forth. And then I could talk about the "fact" that Come and Get It -- via its mechanics -- plays a strong role in establishing and reinforcing the story of that fighter who is sneaky and dishonorable and opportunistic and cowardly.

Except that you couldn't - not with any plausibility, at least. The Come and Get It power specifies that it Pulls enemies, and that only if it will bring them to melee range (adjacent). If it slid the enemies in all directions, you might have a point; but it doesn't. This "sneaky fighter" who surrounds him- or herself with enemies (ending any stealth they might have had going, since it's an attack) is looking like a ripe klutz right about now - unless s/he also happens to have invisibility and/or some pretty leet rogue-ly stealth powers to escape from the mess they just put themselves in...

In which case, which bit of that is supporting the "sneaky combatant" theme, exactly, if it isn't the stealth and invisibility powers, rather than the "let every enemy know you're here and bring them all within melee reach of you" power?

 

[Sunseeker]

A power that pulls enemies into melee range, much as one that gives bonuses for being engaged in melee with several enemies, would seem to support a "melee combatant" theme. That seems pretty clear, to me - what alternative theme did you have in mind?

It's fortunate then, that there are more powers than "come and get it".

 

[Balesir]

It's fortunate then, that there are more powers than "come and get it".

Indeed it is - what an amazing piece of luck that even the fighter has a range of powers from which to pick!

 

[pemerton]

(3) Explore the themes created by the new flavor text.

You seem to be ignoring the place of the mechanics: Come and Get It (and other forced movement powers) plus Rushing Cleats, Polearm Momentum, Deadly Draw and other stuff I'm probably forgetting.

This also relates to [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s post above: the mechanical overhead of D&D is noticeable, but it does give a degree of detail in the fiction that reinforces certain things pretty tightly.

When you use the mechanics to model a dogged and unflappable warrior and I use the same process you describe to model the Joker

Last time I looked the joker doesn't use a halberd. In D&D, that's a pretty big difference.

EDIT: I see that [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] basically covered all this a post or three upthread!

As have [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] in posts below.