NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 6325900" data-attributes="member: 18">The problem with his comment, for me, and why I wouldn't XP it (despite agreeing with you on most things) is that he appears to be suggesting that prior to the 3E/4E, D&D didn't have rules where the PCs got to tell the DM what to do, that it was always "mother may I".That's completely untrue, of course.D&D absolutely DID have those rules. They were just strictly for people who could cast spells. Spells in every edition of D&D tell the DM what happens. Whilst he is able to interpret them or whatever, he actually has less leeway than, with, say, skill rules in 3E/4E.This was something that had become thoroughly obvious to my group by the time 3E hit. It wasn't obvious in early 2E days, because, frankly, we didn't understand or think about "RPG mechanics" in depth. Exposure to tons of RPGs, and to different mechanical ideas, and commentaries on mechanics (serious or joke-y), however, made people think about the. Schwalb admits this with his "seeds" comment, but it wasn't just seeds, it was a thing.It was notable, too, than when we started playing AD&D in '89, anyone might play a non-caster. By the time we stopped, in '00, everyone who understood mechanics at all, thought about them at all, in my group, was playing a caster. This wasn't because I was some horrible "loves to say no" DM, it was because they could tell which way the wind was blowing. They saw, from continual exposure to the game, that if you got to cast spells, you got to dictate what happened to a large extent, whether it was just choosing who to cast them on, or where to cast them, or what shape that Wall spell was, or what that Summoned monster was going to do, and so on.Even in 3E, though, this continued. Spells were better than skills or the abilities of other classes, more absolute, more "this is what happens" (so long as saves were failed, and that was an easy thing to lean on in 3E).Only in 4E did we finally see a kind of equality, where ALL the PCs got to say what happens some of the time, ALL of the PLAYERS got to say what happens some of the time. I don't by this stuff from Schwalb and Libramarian (or so I read it) about DMs being "on the run" or whatever. Going from from the mother in mother may I to more of a typical DM/Storyteller role in RPGs is not "going on the run". Further still, in 4E, I didn't go on the run, as a DM, I went on the attack. It was the first edition where I could unveil my full powers. In 1/2/3E, I could easily, even setting up "balanced" encounters, have been wiping out the PCs over and over. TPK 24/7, yo. But that was no fun. It was easy and boring and made everyone have a bad time.In 4E, with it's balanced encounters, and the PCs ALL able to dictate what happened a lot of the time, I could suddenly go flat out, go tactical, try to win in a way which would have likely wiped the PCs out in earlier editions. That was huge fun for me. I see Librarmarian saying he had to "just watch all the time". That's completely untrue. It's not valid on any level. In 4E, you are not "watching all the time" any more than any other edition - and less than most, because, if you're using balanced encounters, you can actually be playing hard, playing rough, and having a great time in combat.If you don't enjoy that kind of play, totally fair. Saying it's "just watching all the time"? Not fair or right.Final bit of icing on the cake is Libramarian talking about how D&D is a "social game" and thus no-one should be engaging in "power fantasy escapism", but that's nonsensical in the context of what's being said, because in 1/2/3E, anyone playing a Mage and getting past about level 9, got to engage in "power fantasy escapism" pretty mucha ll the time, and I have no doubt that, even with their reductions in power, 5E casters will continue to be able to engage in "power fantasy escapism". I also fail to see how making the PCs work together to win combats, as they must in 4E, is anything less than social. I could totally see his argument for 3E, if he was pointing at the fact that an optimized 3E Wizard beyond a certain level could more or less substitute for the entire party, and thus didn't need to be social (this was also true in 2E, the Mage just had to be much higher level, say 16+, well-prepared, and have a lot of scrolls - I saw it in action numerous times in 2E, because we had a Mage (Transmuter, actually), played for half a decade, who got to like, 19th, and was played by a very canny, planning-oriented player), but 4E? You have to be kidding me.So yeah, no to that.Back on the article, and it is an interesting one, one thing really, really bugged me. Two things, actually:Thinking to look behind the wardrobe. No. That was never fun past age 12, for me or anyone I knew. That sort of "OH BUT YOU DIDN'T SAY YOU LOOKED BEHIND THE WARDROBE WHEN YOU SAID YOU SEARCHED THE ROOM LOLZ!" play, where every single action and idea had to be specifically narrated, was never fun for me as a teenager or adult, as a player or DM. It just seemed stupid. Groups clearly thought it was too. For example, my main group developed two mantras they related. The first, when they were progressing down a corridor, detailed how they were progressing cautiously, carefully, quietly and whilst looking at everything (I forget the exact wording of either, now), because they didn't want any gotchas or the like. The second was for searching rooms (again, the exact words are gone, because thankfully I've not heard it for nearly fifteen years), and it basically detailed how, no seriously, they carefully and quietly-as-possible searched everything, and didn't press any buttons, pull any levers, or the like.The idea that 3/4E don't reward "having a good idea at the table" is abjectly false and edition-warring nonsense. I hope that's not what Schwalb implied, but it looks like it. I'm not even going to engage with it, beyond saying that, I've seen, in 4E, entire eight-hours sessions be focused on "good ideas at the table" (with very little dice-rolling or combat), and that 4E's combat rewards spontaneous good ideas more than any other edition (but does not reward pre-planning as much as any other).Er, nope.I've never known a time when a lot of people didn't enjoy making PCs. There are some who hate it in any edition, and some who love it in every edition.I've enjoyed making PCs in pretty much every RPG ever. It's fun times, whether you're just making someone fun to play, or optimizing or whatever. Certainly for 25 years, so he's dead wrong about "the last 15".</blockquote>

Verification