Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6227925" data-attributes="member: 59082">Let's stop right there, my friend! I'm not "launching a salvo." I really like 4e, but I also see issues with it (at least for me, and many others with similar complaints).To answer your question, I'm familiar with a wide number of games, most of which I haven't played. But I can at least keep pace with the names you mention and have at least a sense of what they're about.See my comment to Balesir. It seems that there's a deeper issue here, which has to do with the basic assumptions about the nature of GM power. Is it absolute or not? Is the DM the opposition and the rule books the referee, or is the DM the "god narrator"? Etc. Part of the problem with the old school approach is DM abuse - that is, it relies upon the DM being able to be an impartial adjudicator. This is easier said than done. On the other hand, part of the problem of the new school approach is what some have called "player entitlement," although you might call it player empowerment. The right question might not be whether or not the DM has absolute power because, as I said to Balesir, even if he doesn't technically, he does in all practical sense. But he also doesn't in that if he abuses his power too much, he'll lose the trust of the players and perhaps even his gaming group. So I think the right question, or at least a better question, is what is the role and responsibility of th GM/DM - and, specifically, what is primary and what is secondary; what is the "hierarchy of roles," so to speak. Regarding "pawn stance," I think, again, it is a matter of degree and - to refer again to my response to Balesir - analogous to the question about guns, and what their role is in violence. One slight caveat. "Gygaxian" D&D certainly employed pawn stance, but it could be done in the theater of mind, while 4e requires (and 3e almost requires) some kind of externalization, a battle mat and miniatures, which I feel strengthen pawn stance. I think its a both/and situation, where 4e's strength is also its weakness. I agree that AEDU can offer a diversity of play due to the sheer number of options and resources a player can draw on for their character to use. That's a strength; in my mind, its a strength that a fighter has more options than "I attack." But the weakness is that because there are so many options/resources, they tend to obfuscate the underlying "uber-option" - which is the player coming up with their own imagined maneuver, one that written down or official. Yes, there is page 42 - but that's essentially an after thought.Now if page 42 was actually page 1 (proverbially speaking), the entire tone of 4e would have been different. Sort of like saying: "D&D is a game of imagination - you can do whatever you want, whatever makes sense in the moment; as examples, here are some options..."Again, a cart and horse thing.I think this can be the case, but unfortunately it seems that it usually isn't. Why? Because it offers a depth and detail of abstraction that, for most I think, obfuscates immersion, rather than augmenting it.Its sort of like this: the internet is an amazing tool that can greatly en-rich life. Too much internet is "too much of a good thing," and actually obfuscates more important qualities of life - like human intimacy, creativity, etc. Pemerton, I see your take on 4e to be one of the most adept and profound - that you "really get it." But I think most don't, or can't, or don't want to. They want something more similar, or at least they want the depth and complexity to be optional or, that magical word, modular. So we're back to the cart-and-horse thing. I like 4e, I even like powers to some extent; I also like 3e and its customization options. But I also long for a simpler core, and--more than anything--the ability to "telescope" (as a verb) in and out, to dial up or down in complexity.As I said to Balesir, I feel that all editions have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to prefer more recent editions to older ones, in the same way that I enjoy more recent technologies to older ones. But sometimes something is left behind. One final analogy. "New school" D&D (3e and 4e) is like an mp3 file, whereas "old school" is like vinyl or even a cassette. Obviously the mp3 is a superior technology - but its also lost something in the process, an organic quality to the sound. Old school advocates see the crackle and hiss of vinyl, or the limitations of its technology, as "features and not flaws." I see them as anachronistic and charming, but would prefer to have the flexibility of recording and clear sound...but...want that organic sound. So for me I'd like to see 5E combine the best of both worlds, and - this is where 5E can bring something new to the mix - provide options and pathways that every DM and game group can easily customize it to their preferred style of play.To quote Arthur from Excalibur, in a wistful tone...It is a dream I have...</blockquote>

Verification