Adapt or Perish!

[Drammattex]

Great post, Merric. Very enjoyable read.

 

[MerricB]

It's worth noting that this topic isn't limited to just representing fiction better - you also need to keep the game updated with the best game mechanics being used.

The magic system falls a lot more into that than representing fiction - which it will almost always fail to do so. What you need in a magic system is something that is fun and enjoyable (and nods a little towards being, well, magical).

The fact is that the AD&D Vancian magic system really comes from the days of miniature wargames, where characters wouldn't be run on a 1:1 scale. That a magic-user can only do, say, five useful things a day? That's not really fun to play. (Play a fighter henchman as well, so you can have fun all of the time!) Magic-users really needed to get wands so they could always be useful... and then they overwhelmed fighters again. It was a clumsy balancing act.

You can see in 3e how the designers started to tinker with it. Wizards got more spells, more abilities, and eventually reserve feats.

Game design has moved on a long way since 1974, and you can see how different fields influence each other.

Cheers!

 

[Tewligan]

That's because I haven't been able to afford a ticket to Australia yet. I've been busy shredding all the previous editions in the US in the meantime.

It's true. I've had to buy 4 copies of the 1e Player's Handbook this year alone because WD keeps bursting into my apartment to destroy them. One time, I was reading it on the toilet - he kicked in my bathroom door, snatched the book from my hands, and SWALLOWED IT WHOLE! Not cool, Whizbang, not cool.

 

[RFisher]

The Elric plug was just an example. There are many others. My point was that D&D has never modeled old or new fiction very well. Its its own animal, and pretty much always has been. An incestuous animal at that.

I really think, though, that being "its own animal" has been a huge reason for its success.

I know exactly what you're saying. I felt the same way. I found other games to play when that's what I want. Since I've decided to--for the most part--let D&D be whatever the designers of whatever edition I'm playing wanted it to be, I've enjoyed it a lot more.

 

[hong]

I really think, though, that being "its own animal" has been a huge reason for its success.

Nah. Being videogamey even before there were video games is the huge reason for its success.

 

[Imaro]

The game that was 100% right for 2000 is very unlikely to be 100% right for 2008. Between 1974 and 2008? You're talking about a generation gap. Just look at the difference in popular music and films. Even if you look at what you enjoyed back when you were a young teenager, is that the same as what you enjoy now?

When I was at university, I played in campaigns that met once per week, if not more frequently. Some of my friends have trouble making even one session per fortnight these days! Real Life takes its toll.

So, the understanding that experience of a game that was designed by some genius who got to play it every day of the week isn't quite the same game experience that us once per fortnighters get. Once per monthers? You have my sympathy.

You know the funny thing is I don't see 4e addressing this problem. Yes you can fight more enemies...but it seems the fights will take just as long or longer. So the time thing will still be an issue, as in how much gets done in any one session.

Any game of the imagination must mainly draw upon the imaginative themes of the day. This is not to say that the themes of the past cannot inform the themes of the present, for clearly this does occur. However, to assume that the new player has (say) read J. Bellair's "The Face in the Frost" rather than Harry Potter is foolish. Rather, you write the game of 2008 for those who have read Harry Potter, and inform the game with the best of what has come before.

That this leaves some behind is inevitable. Not everyone changes the same way, and, that you or another does not like a new edition of D&D does not make your taste in games wrong - just different from where the game is moving to.

Conversely, that the game is pitched to the tastes of today rather than yesterday does not make it wrong.

What exactly are the "tastes" of today? Is there really a collective and common ground? I would say not. Samurai Champloo & Afro-samurai are a totally different type of fantasy than say Harry Potter or even the Final Fantasy VIII game...each of these can appeal to different people or not at all, yet all are modern tastes in fantasy. The question is what modern taste or tastes is D&D 4e trying to incorporate. If it goes the route that another game has already covered, in a better medium...why wouldn't I just play that game?

Just as an example...the market is full of wuxia/semi-wuxia/japanimation based games. Some examples include Exalted, Weapons oof the Gods, Qin: The Warring States, BESM 3e, OVA, etc. I have some of these games and continued purchasing and playing (along with these) D&D 3.5 because it offered a different type of play experience. If it becomes just like them...then why buy another game that accomplishes the same thing?

My hope is, as always, that the designers get it right, as much as possible, for the people who will play D&D for the years to come.

Cheers!

I can agree here, but I think that they should work harder on definning D&D as a fantasy genre in and of itself. Exalted does this very well with a mixture of anime/wuxia/ancient world/magi-tech asthetics. It's really hard to totally classify it in any genre but it's own. You want an almost purely ancient world/mythological feel with tragically flawed, yet powerful heroes...you can do that with Exalted. You want the chosen flying transfroming warstriders that do kung-fu moves and drop essence bombs on the Undead Behemoth city-state of Alt-Ra as Deathlords in Skeletal constructs launch a counter-attack...yep it can do that to.

If D&D can accomodate the most people, while sticking to whatever genre it's selected, then I think it will be a success. The question is which of these modern tastes is the dominant and will it appeal to the most people?

 

[Baby Samurai]

I'm still wondering which 3.5ers are opposed to 4th Ed – players or DMs?

As a DM, is when, in my experience, you can really see the cracks in the system.

 

[Shade]

I'm still wondering which 3.5ers are opposed to 4th Ed – players or DMs?

As a DM, is when, in my experience, you can really see the cracks in the system.

I'm both...and I oppose it mainly from the DM perspective.

I find the fact that 3.5 is extremely flexible to be one of its greatest strengths as a DM. From what I've heard from 4e, it sounds like I'll lose much of that in the interest of simplification. All the information I've seen previewed for monsters thus far makes it sound like they are more simplistic, more homogenized, and therefore (to me) less interesting. I don't want a demon with a single ability that is advanced by adding "skirmisher" levels...I want a versatile demon with numerous special abilities that truly feels like a different creature than the gnoll that serves a similar encounter "role". I'm more than willing to sacrifice prep time and simplicity for a more unique encounter experience.

As a player, I'm excited about getting something at every level, being able to go to level 30 in the core, and so on. If I were just a player, and never saw what goes on behind the screen, I'd probably be semi-eagerly anticipating 4e.

 

[Baby Samurai]

I find the fact that 3.5 is extremely flexible to be one of its greatest strengths as a DM.

The flexibility aspect has become a bit of a Frankenstein's Monster to me, after DMing 3.5 consistently for about 2 years.

To me 3.5 in theory is great (looks great on paper), but falls a little short in implementation/practice.

I feel the game is bit polluted and needs a spring clean, but that's just moi.

 

[Twowolves]

I find the fact that 3.5 is extremely flexible to be one of its greatest strengths as a DM.

After years of playing, owning and reading tons of diverse sytems from many different genres, I have found that one thing that had been missing was PC-Monster equality. By that I mean that in many many systems, the Monsters/NPCs didn't play by the same rules as the PCs. And that bugged me. For example, one sci-fi game I ran ages ago had hit locations for the PCs, but NPCs were just effectively "hit point pools". Sure you rolled hit location when you shot at them, but only to see if you did extra damage on a "critical" hit (head or puddins).

In 3rd ed D&D, they put the monsters/npcs on such an even footing that they were able to make monster classes. Monsters (in 3.5 ed anyway) have the same skill progression, feat progression, stat point bumps, etc etc etc. This, IMO, was one of the most brilliant things they could have done with the system. Going one step further, it was done so well that with monster advancement, class levels and templates, you had a near limitless flexibility when it comes to creating challenges for PCs. The cherry on the sundae is that you can describe a monster completely differently than the mechanics outlined above. To me, the concept in 4th ed of streamlining monsters and putting them into a box defined by role may be easier to run "on the fly", but it sure seems from what we've been shown thus far to be a big step backwards in terms of the even playing field between sides of the DM's screen.