Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6327145" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>You didn't answer my question. Why is casting Infravision on the thief so s/he can scout "clever" or "creative", but using Come and Get It to bunch up the enemies so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff not?</p><p></p><p>Why is using Rock to Mud to drop the cavern roof on a dragon "creative", but using the power of an idol of the Summer Queen to dispel a black dragon's darkness not?</p><p></p><p>Why is staying back and using archery against D&Dnext hobgoblins "clever", but using Parthian archery against hobgoblin infantry in a 4e game not?</p><p></p><p>In one of the first 4e sessions I ran, the player of a paladin spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to get combat advantage against a Wight (and I was able to resolve this before [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION] had written an article on the website suggesting guidelines for doing so). Why is that "creative" in an old school game but "inside the box" for 4e?</p><p></p><p>I've played hundreds of hours of 4e. Quite a bit of my play experience is written up on actual play posts on this site. Telling me that, simply because of the system we were using, none of that play was clever or thinking outside the box <em>is</em> insulting. And I'm not sure who this "Tactician" is that you speak of so dismissively. S/he sounds like the "skilled player" whom Gygax lauds in his PHB and DMG. But in fact 4e doesn't reward only that player - because of its level-based rather than "objective" DCs it rewards Fate or MHRP-style gonzoism in play as well as traditional tactical play. I know because I've seen this - for instance, the tiefling paladin who has been set alight by his own ally, and charges among the hobgoblins threatening to set <em>them</em> on fire, the same character doing a "Gandalf" to follow Vecna down the side of a cliff and stab him with his sword, the sorcerer using Bedevelling Burst to upset the service of jellies at a formal dinner, thereby demonstrating how one might defeat a gelatinous cube in combat. These are all things that have happened in my game, that were clever and creative at the time, that remain so in retrospect, and frankly that couldn't have happened in any other version of D&D but that 4e - mostly <em>because of</em> its mechanical similarity to games like Fate and MHRP - allowd to happen.</p><p></p><p>When you say "there is no denying", how am I expected to respond to that rhetorical move?</p><p></p><p>I mean, I deny it. I have players in my 4e group who have read the CharOp class guides and think that they're wrong - that they pay insufficient attention, for example, to the utility of an ability in actual play rather than in some theoretical mathematical situation. I have players who have chosen a power upon level up by looking through a few books during the session and settling on one that looks useful/interesting to them.</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, what is the quintessence of classic D&D play? Emphasised by Gygax himself in his PHB, as well as by other authors of the period? It is the MU (and to a slightly lesser extent the cleric) choosing the right spell load out - which is optimised-combo-PC-building, but once per ingame day rather than once per level, and so measured in ingame rather than metagame terms. Schwalb even notes as much in his article! Does anyone think there won't be "class guides" for D&Dnext, advising on which spells are better and which aren't? (Especially given that there are quite subtle parameters to work with, given spell scaling plus tightly rationed high level spells.)</p><p></p><p>How is D&Dnext going to be any different in this respect? It still has to hit and damage bonuses that are driven by a main stat. It still has stat-gains and feats. It still has magic items, and players can have desires for those items and have their PCs search the gameworld for them.</p><p></p><p>It's not as if, in AD&D, the fighters didn't load upon on magic weapons and armour while letting the MUs and clerics take the wands and staves!</p><p></p><p>Fair enough. I guess I think my experiences with game systems (including both 4e and AD&D) are relevant to assessing the claim that 4e ruined the great roleplaying that was at the core of AD&D play. Didn't see it, didn't happen.</p><p></p><p>I wasn't actually that annoyed by Schwalb's post - it's no different from dozens of other things I've read along those lines over the past 5 or 6 years. It's the rush of people to defend him, and explain how there is actually no denying that 3E and 4e did wreck the heart and soul of D&D, that's surprising. As someone who has found 4e to be the first edition of D&D to really give full effect to the promise I was made by the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, why am I precluded from denying that it wrecked the game? I think it <em>realised</em> the game.</p><p></p><p>This is a completely different point. It can take a whole session to make characters for Classic Traveller. Fate Core expects making characters to take a whole session. So does Burning Wheel. Are these all games that have destroyed roleplaying in the interests of munchkinisation?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6327145, member: 42582"] You didn't answer my question. Why is casting Infravision on the thief so s/he can scout "clever" or "creative", but using Come and Get It to bunch up the enemies so the wizard can Thunderwave them over the cliff not? Why is using Rock to Mud to drop the cavern roof on a dragon "creative", but using the power of an idol of the Summer Queen to dispel a black dragon's darkness not? Why is staying back and using archery against D&Dnext hobgoblins "clever", but using Parthian archery against hobgoblin infantry in a 4e game not? In one of the first 4e sessions I ran, the player of a paladin spoke a prayer to the Raven Queen to get combat advantage against a Wight (and I was able to resolve this before [MENTION=64825]wrecan[/MENTION] had written an article on the website suggesting guidelines for doing so). Why is that "creative" in an old school game but "inside the box" for 4e? I've played hundreds of hours of 4e. Quite a bit of my play experience is written up on actual play posts on this site. Telling me that, simply because of the system we were using, none of that play was clever or thinking outside the box [I]is[/I] insulting. And I'm not sure who this "Tactician" is that you speak of so dismissively. S/he sounds like the "skilled player" whom Gygax lauds in his PHB and DMG. But in fact 4e doesn't reward only that player - because of its level-based rather than "objective" DCs it rewards Fate or MHRP-style gonzoism in play as well as traditional tactical play. I know because I've seen this - for instance, the tiefling paladin who has been set alight by his own ally, and charges among the hobgoblins threatening to set [I]them[/I] on fire, the same character doing a "Gandalf" to follow Vecna down the side of a cliff and stab him with his sword, the sorcerer using Bedevelling Burst to upset the service of jellies at a formal dinner, thereby demonstrating how one might defeat a gelatinous cube in combat. These are all things that have happened in my game, that were clever and creative at the time, that remain so in retrospect, and frankly that couldn't have happened in any other version of D&D but that 4e - mostly [I]because of[/I] its mechanical similarity to games like Fate and MHRP - allowd to happen. When you say "there is no denying", how am I expected to respond to that rhetorical move? I mean, I deny it. I have players in my 4e group who have read the CharOp class guides and think that they're wrong - that they pay insufficient attention, for example, to the utility of an ability in actual play rather than in some theoretical mathematical situation. I have players who have chosen a power upon level up by looking through a few books during the session and settling on one that looks useful/interesting to them. Furthermore, what is the quintessence of classic D&D play? Emphasised by Gygax himself in his PHB, as well as by other authors of the period? It is the MU (and to a slightly lesser extent the cleric) choosing the right spell load out - which is optimised-combo-PC-building, but once per ingame day rather than once per level, and so measured in ingame rather than metagame terms. Schwalb even notes as much in his article! Does anyone think there won't be "class guides" for D&Dnext, advising on which spells are better and which aren't? (Especially given that there are quite subtle parameters to work with, given spell scaling plus tightly rationed high level spells.) How is D&Dnext going to be any different in this respect? It still has to hit and damage bonuses that are driven by a main stat. It still has stat-gains and feats. It still has magic items, and players can have desires for those items and have their PCs search the gameworld for them. It's not as if, in AD&D, the fighters didn't load upon on magic weapons and armour while letting the MUs and clerics take the wands and staves! Fair enough. I guess I think my experiences with game systems (including both 4e and AD&D) are relevant to assessing the claim that 4e ruined the great roleplaying that was at the core of AD&D play. Didn't see it, didn't happen. I wasn't actually that annoyed by Schwalb's post - it's no different from dozens of other things I've read along those lines over the past 5 or 6 years. It's the rush of people to defend him, and explain how there is actually no denying that 3E and 4e did wreck the heart and soul of D&D, that's surprising. As someone who has found 4e to be the first edition of D&D to really give full effect to the promise I was made by the Foreword to Moldvay Basic, why am I precluded from denying that it wrecked the game? I think it [I]realised[/I] the game. This is a completely different point. It can take a whole session to make characters for Classic Traveller. Fate Core expects making characters to take a whole session. So does Burning Wheel. Are these all games that have destroyed roleplaying in the interests of munchkinisation? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
Top