Another Grognard Reviews 4e based on KotS

[Fifth Element]

"Can" and "need" are such binary terms for something that isn't simply true or false. Yes, you can come up with a convoluted explanation for all kinds of strangeness in D&D, but that doesn't mean that the game couldn't be better without that strangeness.

Of course it is. That doesn't mean that any model is as good as any other, just because they're all make-believe.

Of course, "convoluted" and "strangeness" are completely subjective here. What seems strange to you might seem natural to someone else.

Moreover, the specific point I was refuting was the claim that while you can explain the martial exploits as mundane, they're "really" just magic in disguise - as if what something "really" is has any meaning in a make-believe world.

 

[Fifth Element]

Is this a lesson in that open-mindedness you were teasing me about yesterday?

Just trying out a hongy non-sequitur. Needs work, I think.

 

[AllisterH]

A world <> "the" world

And a long established abstraction that works for one thing doesn't remotely harm the point.

So, basically, the only reason THAT abstraction works is because it is long established?

re: Mundane power exploits
I think D&D honestly needs to take more from anime. If people want a level based game where level MEANS anything, magic has to be curtailed in its effects and/or melee has to go beyond the mundane.

Otherwise, D&D should simply come out and state upfront "magic classes are more powerful, that's just how it is" a la Ars Magica and not hide it until players discover it themselves.

 

[Psion]

Er, you want to explain magical healing/natural healing with regard to HP in 1e-3.x is a good functional model of the world

You want to explain how this in any way relates to my post? Cause what I wrote ain't what you think I wrote. Try reading it again.

 

[Psion]

A world <> "the" world

Thank you.

 

[Psion]

So, basically, the only reason THAT abstraction works is because it is long established?

The reason THAT abstraction works is that it works well in play. Simulationism-wise, it's sort of weak for my purposes. And actually, my 3.5 house rule on damage might strike you as having an element in common with 4e.

I don't labor under the delusion that just because some aspects of a system are decided on simulationist principles that all need be. "Picking your battles" is a valid approach in game design. Disciple of Ron Edwards I ain't.

 

[hong]

Incorrect. Simulationism is not (necessarily) about realism or emulation. It's about treating the game as a functional model of a world and making that a central goal of the rules. 3e and before DID feature this approach in large measure.

Nobody said D&D was perfect.

 

[hong]

A world <> "the" world

Oh, well, that's easy then.

 

[Jim Williams]

I would argue that if people don't like parts of 4e, or even any of it, by Keep on the Shadowfell, then they stand a very good and valid chance of not liking the game...it's as close to playing the first three levels of D&D 4 as you're going to get.

I'm with you here.

If you have been following the developments of the game and play through or run KotS and do not like what you're seeing, you probably will not like 4E.

The only thing we are really missing at this point are a set of how-to-build rules:

• How to Build PCs (lists of feats, powers, equipment, etc.)
• How to Build Monsters (monster creation rules, lists of powers, etc.)
• How to Build Campaigns (all the academic stuff about creating adventures, creating the campaign setting, etc.)
• ...

If you do not like the powers system and how abilities are utilized in game or the character-to-character game balance that seems to be built into the system or combat rules that shed a sense of realism for utility, the rulebooks are probably not going to change that opinion.

I would encourage everyone to try playing in or running Keep on the Shadowfell because, hey, variety is the spice of life after all. And there is more than enough there on which to formulate an opinion of 4E. But If you come out the other end and you did not enjoy your experience, please go back to playing what's fun. That is the point after all.

 

[AllisterH]

The reason THAT abstraction works is that it works well in play. Simulationism-wise, it's sort of weak for my purposes. And actually, my 3.5 house rule on damage might strike you as having an element in common with 3.5.

:

Kinda like the heart of the minion issue. Minions really work well in combat and give a great lotr/conan vibe to encounters but that abstraction is perhaps the biggest issue for many more on the simulationist side of the divide.