A Subtle Shift?

[PeterWeller]

I agree and I've seen many different styles of play in past editions. It does unfortunately seem that 4e is becoming more insistant about the types of games they want you to run (points of light, changes to the great wheel, etc.) I wish they had instead went the other way and made things as generic as possible.

Eh, I don't think they're trying to be insistent on any one style of play; instead, they're trying to present a single cohesive style for new players, making D&D more playable "out of the box." Whether you decide to adopt this style and its baggage to your table or not probably doesn't have a huge effect on how you implement the game's mechanics.

 

[Reaper Steve]

I agree and I've seen many different styles of play in past editions. It does unfortunately seem that 4e is becoming more insistant about the types of games they want you to run (points of light, changes to the great wheel, etc.) I wish they had instead went the other way and made things as generic as possible.

Points of light and the new cosmology is much more generic than old D&D.

As for gamist v. simulationist... it's a game! Not bashing simulationist (I used to be one) but that's best left as a personal add-on than as core rules that will largely be ignored by many gamers that just want to get their dungeon-romp on.

 

[hong]

Forget that g*mist/s*mulationist/n*rrativist Forgeite silliness, which IMO is good only for sparking arguments over the meaning of g*mist, s*mulationist and n*rrativist. Consider instead Robin Laws' classification scheme, which is a far more useful way to pigeonhole people:

- Powergamers: Will probably be happy now that limited per-day powers are gone (for the most part); might be unhappy if game-changing spells/powers are nerfed
- Buttkickers: Will be very happy, with the addition of more combat options and new ways to kick butt
- Tacticians: Depends on how much they bought into the 4 encounters/day setup; reduction in lethality also implies reduction in chance to make an impact by mitigating said lethality; however additional within-encounter options might make up for it
- Storytellers: Will probably be happy; instakills being nerfed and lethality seemingly being toned down means less chance of the plot being wrecked
- Character actors: See storytellers, only substitute character for plot; will also be anticipating the new social interaction rules (of which little has yet been seen)
- Specialists: Depends on whether their specialty got nerfed or boosted; if you like playing fighters you're probably happy
- Casual gamers: By definition, don't care one way or another

 

[Lanefan]

- Powergamers: Will probably be happy now that limited per-day powers are gone (for the most part); might be unhappy if game-changing spells/powers are nerfed
- Buttkickers: Will be very happy, with the addition of more combat options and new ways to kick butt
- Tacticians: Depends on how much they bought into the 4 encounters/day setup; reduction in lethality also implies reduction in chance to make an impact by mitigating said lethality; however additional within-encounter options might make up for it
- Storytellers: Will probably be happy; instakills being nerfed and lethality seemingly being toned down means less chance of the plot being wrecked
- Character actors: See storytellers, only substitute character for plot; will also be anticipating the new social interaction rules (of which little has yet been seen)
- Specialists: Depends on whether their specialty got nerfed or boosted; if you like playing fighters you're probably happy
- Casual gamers: By definition, don't care one way or another

That's a fine summary, hong.

What I'm wondering is whether the reduced lethality will lead to a reduction in the number of edge-of-the-seat we're-all-gonna-die moments of tension that make a session memorable.

The only disagreement I have with the summary is what you say for Casual Gamers - by definition, perhaps, they don't care...but can the game provide something to capture their interest such that they *do* care enough to morph into one of the other listed types? That could be 4e's greatest challenge, right there.

The absolute *worst* thing 4e could do would be to drive the casual gamer out. So far, thankfully, nothing I've seen really seems to point to this.

Lanefan

 

[Exen Trik]

All you need is Wound Points.

Even grittier is what Monte did for his d20 World of Darkness. On a crit, weapons do their base weapon damage (1d6, 1d8, etc.) as Con damage. Nasty.

I guess that works for more danger and lethality (and it does sound fun ), but I was thinking there was more to that playstyle than how you take damage. Ease of healing, some martial powers, etc don't really sound in line with it. But again, I'm a little unsure what the essential properties of the genre is, I may be confusing it a bit with low magic settings and similar.

 

[Ranger REG]

So 4e will be a gamists game. Nothing wrong with that, but as long time rpger (coming on 30 years now) I really think I want my rpgs to be a little more simulationist.

It's great to see the excitement in the community; I hope Wizards, and Mearls, deliver (FYI I think they will)

Dude, up until what you just said, I was going to welcome 4e.

Not a fan of simulation game, though I don't mind using minis and maps as visual aids. I just want a true-blue roleplaying game. Otherwise you might as well call 4e, "D&D Sims"(unless the Sims folks sue for trademark infringement).

 

[GSHamster]

What I'm wondering is whether the reduced lethality will lead to a reduction in the number of edge-of-the-seat we're-all-gonna-die moments of tension that make a session memorable.

It might. But on the other hand, effects like turning to stone over time put a "clock" on the battle. Tension ratchets upwards as you get closer and closer to the end.

 

[pawsplay]

Dude, up until what you just said, I was going to welcome 4e.

Not a fan of simulation game, though I don't mind using minis and maps as visual aids. I just want a true-blue roleplaying game. Otherwise you might as well call 4e, "D&D Sims"(unless the Sims folks sue for trademark infringement).

In my view, simulation is a true RPG. Gamist, narrativist, buttkickerist, whateverist are ways of discussing how people meta-game. But simulation can largely be broken down into "how much simulation?" and "simulating what?" (what tending to be either reality or a certain genre)

 

[mhensley]

I'll probably E6ify 4e and get all the simulation (i.e. genre simulation) I could hope for. I mean, it sounds like the Heroic levels (1-10) are all that I'm going to really want, so I'll find a way to make the game fun in those levels, stretch them out, and ignore the rest.

I'm thinking along these lines as well. 10 levels is all I really need.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

In my view, simulation is a true RPG.

Which of course means you are using a differnet definition of simulation than I am.