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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Changes in Interpretation
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6012441" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. This is what I figured you guys were referring to. </p><p> </p><p>However, I'm with D'karr here. The <poor> 4e editorializing advice notwithstanding, I do not understand what, within the resolution mechanics, would intimate that 4e is unique in its inability to handle this type of play. I share Dkarr's position. As far as I can tell, the resolution mechanics (relative to prior editions where this form of play is advocated for) are indifferent to this playstyle. There are two issues that I think might be at work here to engender the school of thought that 4e uniquely mishandles (or outright cannot handle) this style of play:</p><p> </p><p>1) Designer editorializing (what S'mon is depicting above). I often wonder whether the visceral reaction to 4e would have become manifest if the editor's would have chosen to advocate something less exclusive besides "get to the fun" and thus marginalized peopless playstyles. This is one of the first things that people read about 4e and WOW can I tell you that it turned off an enormous number of gamers in my circle before they were able to even see the resolution mechanics on paper, let alone in game. People are funny. When something turns them off (superficially), their ability to become passive aggressive or willfully indignant is extraordinary. I witnessed it many times when trying to convince players (within my circle) to give the system a go. They couldn't pin down what they didn't like about it but they hated it from the wrods "get to the fun!" Later, there was various (incoherent or untried) mechanical post-hoc justification for their visceral reaction to "get to the fun!" However, it was clear upon probing them that their post-hoc justifications were just cover-up for their rage over "get to the fun!" This is not to say that some folks do not have legitimate, well-considered disdain for 4e's unified mechanics, encounter-based design, etc. However, I am certain (as I witnessed it) that there was a lot of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" after "get to the fun!" and then post-hoc justification (so they wouldn't feel shallow/merely emotive in their angst). </p><p> </p><p>What's more, those initial designer words on 4e (as much if not more than the mechanics) are likely to blame for most "shots off the bow" of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game"...which inevitably forces us into our trenches and then let loose a volley in return. </p><p> </p><p>Finally, the coherency of design intent in 4e (from lead designers, to foot soldiers to editors) appears to have been all over the map. I really don't think they had a solid vision for how they intended this game to play. What's more, I really don't need them to tell me how to play...nor do I need them to produce fiction for me to follow. I need clean resolution mechanics and I will use them to support my gaming needs (or not). For a designer (especially when there is nothing unique in the mechanics to infringe upon a certain playstyle), to tell me to "get to the fun"...well, personally, I'm indifferent. I won't emote or have a visceral reaction. That advice means nothing to me. I'll play my game by way of leveraging the mechanical medium they have provided. If it is grossly at odds with what I'm trying to do, I'll change it or walk away. Outside of 2 (below) and "get to the fun", I still don't see much about 4e that refuses to handle or mishandles "exploratory play."</p><p> </p><p>2) Intra-encounter resource siloing and hard-coding of spells. This area was different than before and, for myself, improved the game dramatically. This likely created some angst (at least initially) from some generalist wizard players and others who expected generalist wizards to be "game-solvers" and expected magic to play this historical role of "open-ended swiss army knife" which, when used "cleverly" can circumvent all manner of conflict and plot device. I found this siloing and hard-coding (and the accompanying Ritual system) to be a beautiful step forward in game design. However, there are certainly plenty of general wizard players (and those who just expected the "bargain with the DM by way of the open-endedness of the magic system to defeat all encounters/circumvent plot arcs) who felt that this siloing and hard-coding "ruined magic" and "wasn't D&D." Strategic play whereby the PCs "interact with their environment" is no longer circumvented or dominated by magic...that is 4e's sole contribution here. You can still strategically solve problems by way of exploring the environment...it is just no longer the primary purview of magic's domain. You can fiddle with the wall for secrete nodules, ride a shield down a stairwell, bridge a long pit with an extension ladder or tie the group together in 4e just fine.</p><p> </p><p>Outlining those 2 (the formal changes that I can think of whereby 4e uniquely interacts with exploratory play), I still don't understand how 4e uniquely infringes upon either 1 or 2 that I outlined in my former post. (i) Editorial advice (especially when it is so shallow and ultimately meaningless) does nothing to mandate a narrow style of play or fiction (especially if the resolution mechanics do not agree with the advice) and siloing and hard-coding spells does not ultimately stop "exploratory play"...it just disallows the leveraging/bargaining of their open-ended, infinite nature to dominate (and thus narrow) "exploratory play."</p><p>I must be missing something. You invoked WPM and ToH. I agree that those two modules are extremely "exploratory play" in the 1e gamist sense. Maybe you looked at a lot of the initial run of 4e modules and they advocate "get to the fun" and don't have the "exploratory play" nuance of those prior modules? I don't know. I haven't looked at a single 4e module. Further, while you can certainly find the "ways to play that the module creators advocate", that doesn't mean that they are the "only ways to play." I have never looked at modules for inspiration for my games so, while I understand that many are, I'm pretty much unaffected by what "style of play" designers advocate as relevant and/or best supported to/by the current edition. </p><p> </p><p>Am I missing your point or am I completely off the charted path? Somewhere our wires may be crossed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6012441, member: 6696971"] Gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. This is what I figured you guys were referring to. However, I'm with D'karr here. The <poor> 4e editorializing advice notwithstanding, I do not understand what, within the resolution mechanics, would intimate that 4e is unique in its inability to handle this type of play. I share Dkarr's position. As far as I can tell, the resolution mechanics (relative to prior editions where this form of play is advocated for) are indifferent to this playstyle. There are two issues that I think might be at work here to engender the school of thought that 4e uniquely mishandles (or outright cannot handle) this style of play: 1) Designer editorializing (what S'mon is depicting above). I often wonder whether the visceral reaction to 4e would have become manifest if the editor's would have chosen to advocate something less exclusive besides "get to the fun" and thus marginalized peopless playstyles. This is one of the first things that people read about 4e and WOW can I tell you that it turned off an enormous number of gamers in my circle before they were able to even see the resolution mechanics on paper, let alone in game. People are funny. When something turns them off (superficially), their ability to become passive aggressive or willfully indignant is extraordinary. I witnessed it many times when trying to convince players (within my circle) to give the system a go. They couldn't pin down what they didn't like about it but they hated it from the wrods "get to the fun!" Later, there was various (incoherent or untried) mechanical post-hoc justification for their visceral reaction to "get to the fun!" However, it was clear upon probing them that their post-hoc justifications were just cover-up for their rage over "get to the fun!" This is not to say that some folks do not have legitimate, well-considered disdain for 4e's unified mechanics, encounter-based design, etc. However, I am certain (as I witnessed it) that there was a lot of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" after "get to the fun!" and then post-hoc justification (so they wouldn't feel shallow/merely emotive in their angst). What's more, those initial designer words on 4e (as much if not more than the mechanics) are likely to blame for most "shots off the bow" of "4e is just a tactical skirmish game"...which inevitably forces us into our trenches and then let loose a volley in return. Finally, the coherency of design intent in 4e (from lead designers, to foot soldiers to editors) appears to have been all over the map. I really don't think they had a solid vision for how they intended this game to play. What's more, I really don't need them to tell me how to play...nor do I need them to produce fiction for me to follow. I need clean resolution mechanics and I will use them to support my gaming needs (or not). For a designer (especially when there is nothing unique in the mechanics to infringe upon a certain playstyle), to tell me to "get to the fun"...well, personally, I'm indifferent. I won't emote or have a visceral reaction. That advice means nothing to me. I'll play my game by way of leveraging the mechanical medium they have provided. If it is grossly at odds with what I'm trying to do, I'll change it or walk away. Outside of 2 (below) and "get to the fun", I still don't see much about 4e that refuses to handle or mishandles "exploratory play." 2) Intra-encounter resource siloing and hard-coding of spells. This area was different than before and, for myself, improved the game dramatically. This likely created some angst (at least initially) from some generalist wizard players and others who expected generalist wizards to be "game-solvers" and expected magic to play this historical role of "open-ended swiss army knife" which, when used "cleverly" can circumvent all manner of conflict and plot device. I found this siloing and hard-coding (and the accompanying Ritual system) to be a beautiful step forward in game design. However, there are certainly plenty of general wizard players (and those who just expected the "bargain with the DM by way of the open-endedness of the magic system to defeat all encounters/circumvent plot arcs) who felt that this siloing and hard-coding "ruined magic" and "wasn't D&D." Strategic play whereby the PCs "interact with their environment" is no longer circumvented or dominated by magic...that is 4e's sole contribution here. You can still strategically solve problems by way of exploring the environment...it is just no longer the primary purview of magic's domain. You can fiddle with the wall for secrete nodules, ride a shield down a stairwell, bridge a long pit with an extension ladder or tie the group together in 4e just fine. Outlining those 2 (the formal changes that I can think of whereby 4e uniquely interacts with exploratory play), I still don't understand how 4e uniquely infringes upon either 1 or 2 that I outlined in my former post. (i) Editorial advice (especially when it is so shallow and ultimately meaningless) does nothing to mandate a narrow style of play or fiction (especially if the resolution mechanics do not agree with the advice) and siloing and hard-coding spells does not ultimately stop "exploratory play"...it just disallows the leveraging/bargaining of their open-ended, infinite nature to dominate (and thus narrow) "exploratory play." I must be missing something. You invoked WPM and ToH. I agree that those two modules are extremely "exploratory play" in the 1e gamist sense. Maybe you looked at a lot of the initial run of 4e modules and they advocate "get to the fun" and don't have the "exploratory play" nuance of those prior modules? I don't know. I haven't looked at a single 4e module. Further, while you can certainly find the "ways to play that the module creators advocate", that doesn't mean that they are the "only ways to play." I have never looked at modules for inspiration for my games so, while I understand that many are, I'm pretty much unaffected by what "style of play" designers advocate as relevant and/or best supported to/by the current edition. Am I missing your point or am I completely off the charted path? Somewhere our wires may be crossed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Changes in Interpretation
Top